The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles: ① the Defendant was authorized to enter the office of this case; ② the entry into the office of this case is not a building intrusion; ② the office of this case is neglected without using the computer of this case, and there is no property value; thus, it cannot be an object of larceny; and the Defendant is not an object of larceny. The Defendant merely abandoned the computer of this case, etc., which was separated from his wife’s fighting with his wife, and thus, did not intend to acquire illegal profits, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

B. 1) The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant opened the above office entrance and opened it in an irregular way in front of the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. managed by the victim D, Hahnnam-si, Hahn, Hank-si, Hak-si.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd on the building managed by the damaged person.

B) (1) In the crime of intrusion on a structure, the term “influence” means entering a structure contrary to the intention or presumed intention of the manager, etc., and a person who has already entered a structure legally into a structure does not constitute a crime of intrusion on a structure unless the person enters a structure with illegal purposes from the beginning to the beginning.

It is reasonable to see (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2897 delivered on February 14, 1984, etc.). (2) Taking into account the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below and the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, the prosecutor submitted it.