A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.
Punishment of the crime
From around July 20, 1996 to July 20, 2012, the Defendant resided in the G apartment 6 complex 608 dong 1405 in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-do. The Defendant was subject to compulsory execution on July 20, 2012 and went into the above apartment on July 20, 2012 on the ground that the complainant of the apartment management office failed to pay rent and maintenance expenses for the apartment. At that time, the Defendant was living in the above C apartment 6 apartment complex sperm and was removed by the head of the apartment management office D, the Defendant was living at the entrance of the apartment underground parking lot.
When the Defendant, as seen above, was removed from tents, the Defendant resided in the above Convenes from May 2, 2013 to July 2, 2013 without any justifiable reason while living in the above 608 apartment site as a cover of the 608 apartment site and having received a request for the eviction from the victim, and without any justifiable reason, resided in the above Convenes from around July 2, 2013.
The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness D;
1. Each complaint;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;
1. Relevant Article 319 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the execution of a sentence shall be suspended only once, considering the fact that it is not good that the defendant is punished by a fine or heavier punishment, the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished by a fine or heavier punishment, the health status of the defendant
1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's argument regarding probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act does not constitute a refusal to leave under the Criminal Act, since his/her place of accommodation does not correspond to a room of human residence, management building, structure, ship, aircraft, or possession.
The term "building" is simply the building itself in the crime of sprinking and refusing to leave.