On August 2, 2016, at around 17:30 on August 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened a notice on the exercise of the right of retention on a commercial building located in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group B; (b) opened the notice on the exercise of the right of retention that the victim was placed in the front door of the said house, using a gate 10,00 won of the market value of the victim’s ownership; and (c) removed the notice, thereby impairing its utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A copy of the lien report;

1. Relevant photographs and field photographs;

1. Construction specifications;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on report of occurrence and internal investigation;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. A fine not exceeding 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The decision as to the defendant's assertion under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the defendant is a criminal act in this case for the purpose of removing illegal attachment attached to a building after the whole building was adjudicated after the successful bid, and thus, the defendant's primary crime is the defendant, the victim's damage is minor, and the victim's right of retention on the third floor of the victim's building is not recognized) of the Criminal Code

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is the owner of the instant building which was knocked down, and the owner of the instant building in order to verify the possession status of the second floor building, the locks installed in the entrance door and the notice of exercising the right of retention are

After that, as a result of filing a lawsuit against the victim against the victim, the right of retention for the third floor of the building of this case is not recognized.

When determined, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

2. First of all, there is room for recognizing the legitimacy of the purpose of removing locks in the process of the Defendant’s act of entering the building to confirm the occupancy situation in the building.

However, the defendant is removed from a notice or lock to the victim.