If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On May 28, 2013, the Defendant had a lien on some of the sales buildings and housing in Suwon-gu D at a place where it is impossible to identify the light place on May 28, 2013.

E prepare a delegation contract with the purport to exercise the right of retention on behalf of the defendant, and then F, F, around March 29, 2014, when exercising the right of retention on behalf of the above E, does not need to exercise the right of retention on the housing of 803 units of the above building, and even though the same contract was newly prepared to exclude the housing of 803 units of the above 803 units from the subject of the right of retention, there was a right of retention under the above 803 units of the above 803 units of business.

The assertion has been made.

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) removed the correction device using the building master height, and intruded into the structure managed by the victim F and the victim G, by setting up the correction device, where the Defendant had the entrance, which was the owner of the victim F, of the said D Building No. 803, which was the owner of the victim F, of E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Recording of each statement of witness G, E, H and I in the seven-time public trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E and A business agreement ( March 29, 2014);

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel convicted of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: (a) the Defendant continued to possess the instant building 803; and (b) the Defendant exercised the right of retention on the basis of the claim for the payment of the construction price for the said building; and (c) the Defendant’s act as stated in the facts charged does not constitute the crime of intrusion on the structure.

Appellants, the instant facts charged are denied.

According to the above evidence, the defendant was delegated from May 28, 2013 to E, and the building of this case to J & K corporation.