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

1. Around 14:00 on November 20, 201, the Defendant: (a) exercised a lien on the part of the victim E of the D representative director E, a corporation in front of the building and neighborhood living facilities located in C, who received a contract for the construction of the said building from the Defendant; (b) exercised the right of retention; (c) the safety tape equivalent to 8,800 won at the victim’s market price located in the front group of the said building was removed and discarded; (d) four banners equivalent to 262,90 won at the victim’s market price installed at the entrance and inside the said building were removed and discarded; and (e) two locks equivalent to 50,000 won at the market price installed at the entrance of the said building were removed and removed, thereby impairing the utility of each property owned by the victim, thereby damaging property worth 321,700 won in total.

2. The Defendant removed two locks installed by the victim to exercise the right of retention at the time, time, and place as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and obstructed the victim’s exercise of the right by taking the building owned by the Defendant, which became the object of the right of retention, by allowing F to enter the said building and manage the building.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of suspect with regard to F;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. A contract agreement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographed land;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 323 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of a fine for a crime

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defense counsel of the gist of the claim is the fact that the defendant removed the banner installed by the victim and the correction device, but this is the victim's commercial building.