The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was found that A was a lawful possessor of the building of the Jindo-ri 347 Sudong-ri, Seosan City (hereinafter “the building of this case”) and was incorporated into the building of this case, and thus, he did not have any intention to intrude into the building.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport as that of this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail on the grounds of the “judgment on the allegations of the Defendants and their respective defense counsel.”

In addition to the circumstances described in the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the defendant was well aware that the possession relation of the building of this case was complicated because he had the power of having been sentenced that no lien exists while occupying the building of this case by asserting a lien; ② He was scheduled to conduct on-site inspection from A around 1:0 a.m.; ③ he was accompanied by the building of this case; ③ he was aware of this fact at the time of entering the building of this case by attaching locks, such as the fact of crime, using the cutting devices carried on the vehicle; ④ A was scheduled to conduct on-site inspection; ④ Since access to the building of this case is anticipated to be done within two hours, it is difficult to see A locks as the act of legitimate possessor; ⑤ The crime of entering the building of this case is the benefit and protection of the law, and therefore the establishment of the crime depends on whether the dwelling person or the person who has the right to live in the building of this case or the right to live in the building of this case.