If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant completed a report on the change of the owner on January 5, 201 and completed a construction work for the building of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

With respect to the above building, the victim D was awarded a contract for civil engineering works of KRW 570,00,000 from E, which is the previous owner of the building, but the victim D was not paid part of the construction cost, but exercised the right of retention by occupying the building under progress since October 2006.

At around 16:00 on January 8, 201, the Defendant: (a) opened the partitions installed in order for F to use ten employees of the service company under the name of F, who is the site manager, to occupy the 1st floor of the building in question and use it as the lodging room of the assistive human resources in possession; (b) opened the partitions at that place; (c) opened the equipment owned by the victim, such as air conditioners, TV, laundry, laundry, laundry, fences, etc.; and (d) installed the temporary fence, installed the temporary fence to prevent the victim and the assistive human resources from re-entry; and (d) proceeded with the exercise of the victim’s lien.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 323 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. On March 15, 2011, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the victim filed a provisional disposition against the Defendant, such as prohibiting access to the third floor of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2001Kahap9) for the establishment of the Daejeon-gu new building C new building; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a decision that the Defendant shall not interfere with the victim’s exercise of the right of retention by entering the third floor of the building or changing its original state; and (c) posted the above building at around that time

Nevertheless, the Defendant awarded a contract to H for a glass project, and had H use a high-priced bridge vehicle around 16:30 on May 10, 201, to the outer wall of the building.