A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Defendant

A is a person who acts on behalf of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, and Defendant B is an employee of the management and construction agency of the said D Building.

On June 23, 2014, at around 21:07, the Defendants stated to the effect that the victim F is already aware of the secret number of the entrance, which he had already been aware of, and opened the door, and entered the above 201, the victim’s right of retention.

As such, the Defendants jointly invaded the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Police officers and prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning F;

1. A complaint filed by the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (recordd documents submitted by a complainant - ruling, summary order, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act claimed that the Defendants, who manage the D building, did not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence since the victims had been deprived of possession and had already entered the D building 201 without permission when the right of retention was extinguished.

According to each of the above evidence, ① the victim has a claim for the construction cost with respect to the D Building that should be paid through Sam Titti Work Co., Ltd. from 2005 to 201, the victim has exercised the right of retention, and he has directly occupied it or occupied it through G, H, etc., and requested management to I.