In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Defendant

A is the Director of the Management Office of D Apartment-ro (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and Defendant B is the general director of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment.

While the Defendants continued to conflict with the representative of occupants due to the appointment and dismissal of the head of the instant apartment management office and the bid of the cleaning service company, the Defendants: (a) arbitrarily replaced the lock-gate lock-down system for the entrance of the council of occupants’ representatives jointly-owned by the occupants of the second floor apartment management office in the instant apartment management office from the occupant representative group; (b) decided on May 2, 2014 to remove entrances from E and F, which are employees of the management office; and (c) ordered E and F to damage the entrance.

As a result, the Defendants jointly removed the entrance by removing the entrance door from the open door around 08:20 on May 2, 2014 by E and F, and prevented them to jointly and jointly damage the entrance of the council of occupants' representatives in the city where apartment occupants shared.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Witnesses G and E respective legal statements;

1. Some police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. A written statement of G and E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (field situations, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, each of the choice of punishment, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 31 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines, respectively;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Articles 186(1) main sentence of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 191(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the cost of lawsuit, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act since the Defendant committed an act as stated in the judgment in order to protect the security and property rights of the occupants.