However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant was an employee of E, a subcontractor of D Co., Ltd., and on March 2009, at the time of the closure of the business, E claimed that the Defendant was a disguised closure of business for the de facto dismissal of the Defendant, who was working as the president of the Organizing Committee for D C Staff at the time of the closure of the business, and filed a lawsuit against the victim, etc. to apply for relief from unfair dismissal or to confirm the invalidity of dismissal.

On March 7, 2011, the Defendant drafted a letter of commitment stating that “Around May 27, 2011, the Defendant shall be employed as D collaborative companies within December 2012” from the representative of the Consultative Council of In-house Cooperation Companies in the Victim Company’s Companies, upon intrusion into the ship’s shipbuilding yard, up to 50 meters of the height of transmission towers located in the shipbuilding yard’s site, and began high-quality agriculture.”

However, since there is no company that would employ the defendant during the victim's intra-corporate cooperation, the content of the promise has not been fulfilled. The defendant, by pressureing the victim's company, prepared cutting machines, nopoly, nopoly, nopoly, and nopoly, as a tool to be used, if necessary in the course of intrusion inside the shipbuilding yard and high-quality farming, in order to re-employed the victim's company, and prepared for cutting machines, nopoly, and multiple nopoly, etc.

1. On April 9, 2015, the Defendant intruded upon a special structure: (a) was in front of the shipbuilding yard of the victim company located in F at F at the time of 02:30 on April 9, 2015; (b) was extracted from cutting or stripping, which is a dangerous object by taking advantage of the gaps in the surveillance and negligence of the security guards; (c) was carried with a stringer and one-time raft, carried with the stringer and carried into a building “G” inside the said string door; and (d) went back to the string of the building through the window and intruded into the shipbuilding yard, which is a structure managed by the victim company.

2. The defendant who interferes with his duties is above the stringr, which was used for the design work, such as the container line (H) and LNG carriers (I), which was being built in contact with the above NV walls at the same time and at the same place.