All of the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. On the summary of the grounds of appeal No. 1, the defendant asserts that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant could not recognize a peaceful dwelling that can be protected for the victim since the victim did not possess and manage the building of this case in a peaceful manner.

On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the building of this case is not owned by the defendant, and even if the building of this case is owned by the defendant, the victim lives while the building of this case is owned by the defendant, and the peace of the victim's dwelling should be protected, but there is no evidence to prove that the building of this case was lawfully occupied, the judgment of the second court which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is an error

2. The crime of intrusion upon residence is classified as the protected legal interest of the crime of intrusion upon residence. Thus, the issue of whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend upon the establishment of the crime, and even if the occupation of the person who has no right to possess is the possession, the peace of the dwelling must be protected. Thus, if the right holder intrudes upon the building without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in executing the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first and second instance court on July 27, 2007 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3137, Jul. 27, 2007). The fact that the victim had resided in the building of this case neglected from November 201, 2012 while occupying and managing it from December 2017. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had 5/9 shares in the said building, the victim had 1/9 shares, and the victim had not obtained consent from the remaining equity right holders, such as the Defendant, while residing in the said building.