부동산강제집행효용침해
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Punishment of the crime
On November 13, 2014, around 12:45, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District Court C 102, enforced enforcement officers D to leave the said house in accordance with the real estate eviction enforcement protocol No. 5371, Seoul Northern District Court 2014.
No real estate which has been removed from the compulsory execution by any other way shall infringe upon the utility of the compulsory execution.
Nevertheless, around November 2014, the Defendant entered the above Defendant’s house into an open window and intruded into it, and made the Defendant reside in E, which is the Defendant’s third village, from April 7, 2015.
Accordingly, the defendant infringed on the evictioned real estate, thereby impairing the utility of compulsory execution.
Summary of Evidence
1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers against the defendant or E;
1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;
1. A written statement;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of one copy of donation, such as No. 102 of the first floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;
1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: the defendant paid the successful bid price on November 26, 2014 and acquired ownership under Article 31-2 of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102; and thereafter entered the building. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of infringing on the utility of compulsory execution, and the defendant did not have any intention.
The argument is asserted.
The real estate, which is the object of the crime of infringing on the utility of the compulsory execution of real estate, shall be interpreted to include the real estate which has been removed from the real estate by compulsory execution, and the real estate which has been expelled or delivered by compulsory execution, which has impaired the utility of the compulsory execution as referred to in the above crime, shall be classified into the purpose of the right holder.