On March 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) removed the said G, which was jointly occupied by the victim under the said contract, from the said “E” movable property; and (b) removed the said G, which was arbitrarily occupied by the victim, to an inorganic place.

As a result, the defendant taken a G in possession by the injured party and obstructed his exercise of rights.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, even if the Defendant, at the time of carrying out the G facilities as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “facilities of this case”), shared civil liability for damages arising from an accident that occurred in the course of operating the facilities of this case between the Defendant and the victim, and did not end the dispute, the facilities of this case were in excess of the victim’s possession or management from the police officer in the year 2014, in which the operation of the movable property as indicated in the facts charged was suspended at the latest.

It is reasonable to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the victim possessed the facility of this case at the time specified in the facts charged, or had an intentional intent to obstruct the defendant from exercising his right to possess the facility of this case.

and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

A. The victim is a person who installed play facilities, such as a ticket office and balking, by leasing the land of Incheon H, D, and I (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “leased land”), and operated the play movable property from the leased land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “E”).

B. The victim is the Defendant around October 2010.