Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On July 6, 2015, the Defendant entered the E University Start-up Infant Care Center located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, 09:30, 307 used by the victim F, and 307 without the victim’s permission, and entered the e-mail, which was known in advance, and entered the door.

Accordingly, the Defendant invadedd the room used by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness F, and some of the witness G legal statement;

1. Statement F and G of each statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made to F or G by the police;

1. A president of the F;

1. Application of investigation reports (limited to attachment of site photographs) and statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 319 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. 1) The Defendant’s permission to use the victim is only one among five books owned by H in the E University Start-up Infant Care Center 307 (hereinafter “instant 307”), and the space occupied by the victim is merely one room on a book. It cannot be deemed that such a room is merely one room.

2) The lawful lessee under subparagraph 307 of this case used part of the part of the No. 307 of this case from H to H as a warehouse that has the custody of equipment and technology development dispute, etc. even after the Defendant had occupied part of the No. 307 of this case, and its employees had access to the No. 307 of this case. As such, the Defendant, the representative director of H, also has the right to lawfully enter the No. 307 of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s entry into the No. 307 of this case does not constitute intrusion, and even if the Defendant’s entry into the No. 307 of this case constituted an intrusion, the space used by the victim is part of the entire size of No. 307 of this case, and the victim thereafter.