The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A entered the site by normal means, and Defendant A entered the site for the purpose of labor, so it is not established.

B) Defendant A did not want a police officer to take a bath or walk with a police officer. Defendant B’s act constitutes an act of Defendant B’s act against the police officer’s price of his own blue with his arms. Thus, Defendant B’s act constitutes an unlawful act against the police officer’s performance of official duties.

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of August, suspension of execution of two years, community service work 120 hours, Defendant B: imprisonment of six months, suspension of execution of two years, community service 120 hours) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination 1 as to Defendant A’s intrusion upon residence is classified as a legal interest protected by the law relating to the crime of intrusion upon residence. Thus, whether a resident or a manager has the right to reside in or manage a building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of a crime. Even if a person is permitted to enter a usual building due to his/her relationship with the resident or manager, etc., if the act of entering a residence was committed despite the explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). However, if the act of entering a residence was committed despite his/her explicit or presumed intention of the resident or manager, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2595, Aug. 23, 2007). The court below duly adopted and investigated the following facts and circumstances, i.e., the victim E (hereinafter “victim E”) notified the expiration of the contract to Defendant A on Aug. 24, 2018.