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

1. On June 28, 201, the Defendant damaged the property by removing the locks of plastic materials owned by the victim D, which were used as the first place for the management of the above parking lot on September 17, 2011, in order for the victim D, who had been operating a parking lot after installing parking facilities on the above site before that time, to not clarify it, even though the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the land of Incheon Nam-gu C by means of a voluntary auction on June 28, 2011, and then impairing its utility by changing it to a new lock.

2. On September 17, 201, the Defendant: (a) intruded the structure managed by the victim D by removing the locks, as described in sub-paragraph (1) from September 17, 201; and (b) entering the above guard room.

3. On October 24, 201, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s parking lot operation by force, by drilling the hole on the floor at the entrance of the parking lot using the excavating machine at the parking lot operated by the victim C victim D on October 24, 2011.

Summary of Evidence

1. D's statement among the protocol of interrogation of the police against the accused;

1. Statement of the police made to D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a sales contract for a steel-frame assembly parking lot, photographs of a parking lot security room, photographs of damage to security room, photographs of parking fees, photographs of the establishment of a parking lot, notices of the establishment of an on-road parking lot, list of auction and appraisal of real estate, appraisal reports

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines, and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act,

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the defendant's argument under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserted that the possession or service of the victim of the instant parking facility is not recognized, but the instant parking facility is not recognized.