Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On October 16, 2018, the Defendant was scheduled to hold a director as of December 25, 2018 on the third floor of the above building as the buyer who purchased the third floor building in Jeju City from the seller C, and the victim D was a person who leased the second floor of the above building from C and operated the “Evis”.

The Defendant, around 15:00 on December 21, 2018, came to the above “Edab” and, in order to implement remodeling and boiler construction from the construction business operator, he/she must diving the boiler on the second floor of the said building.

'' listens to stories and opened the Edial entrance without the consent of the victim, and intrudes into the structures managed by the victim by opening the boiler room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Investigation Report-Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for field verification;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. First, the victim did not engage in the business at the time of committing the crime, thus not infringing upon the peace of residence, and therefore there was no intention to impair the peace of residence of the defendant.

Second, the lease contract between the former owner and the victim was terminated, and the defendant must move into the building of this case by taking a director at the land on December 25, 2018. Thus, the situation where the boiler repair and the artificial stove was necessarily required, and the victim was not easily contacted, etc., the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

2. First, according to the result of the examination of evidence, even though the fact that the victim was not engaged in business in the pertinent building at the time of committing the crime, this does not affect the establishment of the crime of intrusion on the structure, and the defendant intentionally intrudes upon the entrance door.