The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. As to the fact-finding 1) the Defendant’s refusal to leave heading 2017 order or 251 order, the Defendant did not have received the demand for eviction from G, etc. on the date and time stated in the facts constituting the offense of refusing to leave since it did not constitute a crime of refusing to leave, and as to the intrusion of a structure, the Defendant is merely a case where the control line was satisfed in a state that the body is difficult, and it is merely a case where the control line

2) Regarding the 2017 Highest 1204 highest 2017 highest 1204, the Defendant did not have any fact of assaulting the victim N, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

3) As to interference with the performance of official duties in 2017 Highest Order 1204, the Defendant did not commit any assault against police officers P, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge such assault.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s determination on the ground that a structure was generally permitted to enter the lower court’s determination, i.e., a structure that intrudes upon another’s structure, and that a public building, including a university, enters or leaves the general public during a daily period of time, even if such structure was established against the explicit or presumed intent of the manager.

Even if it is necessary for the general public to have access to or stay in the building in order to view it as a normal usage of the building, it is merely permitted by a comprehensive or implied consent from the manager of the building, and thus, exceeding the scope of legitimate usage, or entering or leaving for another purpose exceeds the scope of comprehensive or implied consent, and thus, it cannot be allowed to enter or stay without any separate consent from the manager.

The court below's aforementioned evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following can be recognized.