The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) is that Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) who owned and occupied H apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) as indicated in the facts charged is a stock company and G opened each door door to the facts charged with the delegation of C, with the recognition that he was not entitled to occupy the instant apartment as a false creditor. Thus, Defendant C did not have the intention to intrude upon residence and damage property.

2. In light of the above legal principles, since the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence, whether a resident or a person has a legal authority to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime. On the other hand, even if the right holder loses his/her legal authority after lawful residence or the commencement of simplified occupancy and illegal occupancy under private law, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, G applied for payment order against G to seek construction cost payment of KRW 3.5 billion against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da10091, Jan. 20, 2009; G is an apartment building with the legal authority to reside in the building, etc.; and it can be seen that the above order of payment was legally effective as the right of retention against the defendant's present party's exercise of the right of retention.