The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of intrusion on a structure is a legal interest that protects the de facto state of possession, so if the injured party occupied and managed the building, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime even if the building was owned by the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9873, Feb. 28, 2008). The victims at the time of the instant case were occupied and managed the building in accordance with an agreement with the Defendant, and the Defendant went into the building in question with F, the husband, without the consent of the victims. It can be sufficiently recognized that the victims at the time of the instant case had been sufficiently recognized that the victims occupied and managed the building in question and the Defendant

The judgment of the first instance court which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged was affirmed as it is.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) On August 25, 2011, the victims concluded a lease agreement on the instant building and managed the lessee following the conclusion that the Defendant delegated the right to lease the instant building to the victim E.

2) Former lessee of the instant building

G After June 201, 201, after the first instance court moved into the building of this case, the Defendant did not reside in the building of this case or the fifth floor of this case, and only the degree of sexual harassment was left on the fifth floor, and the Defendant, his husband, the Defendant, and the her husband, were not considered to have divers while she resides, and the Defendant and her husband, and the f, the divers of this case was withdrawn from the divers of this case.

was stated.

3) In the relevant civil lawsuit brought by the victim E against the Defendant, the said victim asserted only the fact that he/she is the owner of the building of this case as the cause of the claim and filed a claim for its delivery, etc., but the said victim did not acquire ownership due to the lack of the liquidation procedures for the transfer security

As the claim was dismissed, the defendant at the time of the crime of this case.