If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. The Defendant damaged property: (a) around February 20, 2016, the South-dong, South-dong, Dong-gu, Seoul-dong, and the victim D’s dwelling at the victim No. 105; and (b) arbitrarily installed locks in the entrance door so that the victim may not have access to the premises.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property and damaged its utility.

2. On February 28, 2016, the Defendant, at around 20:0 on February 28, 2016, opened a door and opened a door with which the said victim corrected, at the same place as the foregoing paragraph 1.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written petition of D;

1. On-site photographs (the defendant asserts that there is no fact that he/she has installed locks on the victim’s house.

① However, the application of the law to the victim of the instant case where the Defendant sent to the victim the word “the Defendant shall be punished by the lock-up keys spacker or the spick spacker,” and the Defendant’s warning body posted next to the locks is similar to the Defendant’s body’s pentain, and ③ the Defendant infringed upon the victim’s house as stated in Article 2 of the facts charged on February 28, 2016, and the Defendant, other than the Defendant, cannot put the locks installed as above, may be fully convicted of the Defendant of the facts charged.”

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence and the selection of fines);

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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