A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Defendant

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

Defendant

A and B, around 17:08 on March 4, 2016, the victim C, who had concerns over undermining the peace of studio residents, is a resident and the owner of the building, and failed to comply with the request without justifiable reasons until 17:20 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness A, B, C, and H;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol regarding Defendant C

1. Statement made by the police officer in G; and

1. Defendant A’s written statement is the president of the restaurant employed by G, and Defendant B is an employee of the above restaurant and is G’s friendship.

Defendant

B Prior to the instant month, it was difficult for G to play the Fudio 102, which is located at least 3 times in one month, and G was also informed of the Fudio No. 102.

The above Defendants visited G, as long as G does not work for a day and did not receive a telephone, G’s address 102.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendants’ act of entering the Fudio can be deemed lawful in that it is highly likely that the Defendants would not go against the will of the Fudio residents, including G.

However, as long as the Defendants 102 opened the entrance of the 102 door and set aside a disturbance, thereby breaking the peace in the dwelling of other people residing in the Fudio, from that time, C married couple, who had resided in the Fudio, No. 102 side 101, as the owner of the building at the Fudio, may demand the Defendants to leave as the residence owner.

Moreover, in view of the fact that G said G does not leave the same employee of the restaurant operated by the Defendant in the police and stated that it was avoided from contact with the Defendant A, the summary of the withdrawal of the C Husband and wife

It seems that the Gu also conforms to G's will.

Defendants shall leave the Defendants

shall not have received the Gu.