If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is the same E, a criminal defendant, a criminal defendant of victim D's fraud.

On June 21, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 21:10 on June 21, 2012, G apartment 1205 and 1102, which is the house of the victim in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant: (b) opened a door-to-door shock, because the victim did not open the gate, with E and his family members, by refusing their demand; (c) opened the door-to-face shock; (d) opened the door-to-face security . door; (d) opened the door-to-face door; and (e) intruded the victim’s residence by having the door-to-face located before the opening of the door-to-door; and (e) the victim intruded the victim’s house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecutor’s statement by H;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Code for the confinement of the workhouses did not enter the victim's apartment entrance, and that D and H's statement are not reliable.

He stated in this Court that he had been at the present site as the victim Do, the victim Do, and his father and her incidental, that he entered the place where the defendant was living in the apartment of the victim and called the victim's apartment, and that he went again, and that he did not go again. The statement in this part is consistent.

Although each statement made by the victim wife I in this court was somewhat inconsistent with the detailed part regarding the situation before and after the occurrence of the instant case at the time, the credibility of each of the above statements is not dismissed on the sole basis of such circumstances.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.