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

The Defendant, as the chairperson of D Co., Ltd., entered into a construction contract with the victim H, the owner of “G commercial building” in Seo-gu, Incheon, and F, and, around October 26, 2010, delivered the victims after completing the construction of the commercial building, but did not receive the construction payment, and was able to enter the commercial building along with the Defendant’s employees, etc.

1. On April 16, 201, around 10:00 on April 16, 201, the Defendant entered the said G commercial building with the Defendant’s employees and posted a paper “in the course of exercising the right of retention” in the glass entrance door of the factory room. There were seven banners on the rooftop of the building stating “in the course of exercising the right of retention” and “workers in arrears with construction cost” on the outer wall of the building, and there was difficulty in disturbing the Defendant by entering the victim’s office for one hour.

Accordingly, the defendant invadeds on the building managed by the victim, and interfered with the business of selling and managing commercial buildings by force.

2. In order to install approximately seven banners at the above time and place, the Defendant damaged property, such as making stuffed the wall that falls short of the victim’s wall on the rooftop of the commercial building owned by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Partial statement of a witness I;

1. A copy of the contract for construction works submitted by the suspect A, and a copy of the document evidencing F;

1. A copy of the first and second agreements, etc. submitted by the suspect A;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel entered the commercial building of this case for the legitimate purpose of receiving the construction cost, and did not have any disturbance for the victim and the payment method of the construction cost at the time, and the act of the defendant does not amount to the extent that the use of the property would be prejudicial to the utility of the rooftop wall only for the purpose of installing banner.