When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On August 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00 on August 13, 2018, installed a lock-down device of the first floor (outside the third floor) entrance door administered by the victim C (year 46) in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to replace it with a new lock-out device; (b) prevented the victim’s access; and (c) concealed the unsatisfying machine, stitus, etc. in the market price, which was owned by

2. The Defendant intrusiond the building through the stairs of the underground entrance to the front of the above office, which is the building managed by the victim, at the time and place as referred to in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the C’s statement);

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant, and his defense counsel as to the contents of D's text messages, pictures of the suspect's text messages

1. Whether Amendments to Bill of Indictment are lawful (the part concerning the destruction and damage of property);

A. The indictment that changed the gist of the assertion is unlawful to allow the prosecutor to amend the indictment, since it is not identical to the indictment prior to the amendment.

B. 1) The identity of the facts charged, which are the requirements for permission of changes in indictment, shall be maintained in the same way as it is based on the same social facts. In determining the identity of such basic facts, the Defendant’s act and its social factual basis should be based in mind with the function of identity of the facts, and normative elements should also be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14097, Sept. 12, 2013). 2) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the modified facts charged are identical to the facts charged prior to the alteration.

① All of the initial facts charged and the actions of the criminal defendant in the revised facts charged are " below the branch office managed by the victim on the date and time stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the criminal defendant."