However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is the owner of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment house 2422 Dong 1101.

The defendant leased the above apartment to the victim D with KRW 200 million, but the lease term expires, but the victim continued to possess and manage the above apartment because the lease deposit was not returned.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without returning the lease deposit, had the victim excluding only possession, and had the victim live.

On November 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) found the above apartment and arbitrarily removed and damaged the locking device from the entrance; (b) entered the said apartment; and (c) prevented the victim from entering the said apartment by attaching a new locking device; and (d) interfered with the victim’s exercise of the right to possess the said apartment by destroying the entrance locking device of the said apartment that is the object of the victim’s possession.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement protocol of the police with D (net 3);

1. Investigation report (to accept keyss and hear statements of the owner of the business);

1. A lease contract, a written confirmation, or a certified copy of the register;

1. Stockholm dialogue data;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 323 of the Criminal Act that prescribes the option of punishment, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the exercise of rights), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc., was that the Defendant destroyed the locking system of the entrance door of the object of lease and intruded into the lessee without returning approximately KRW 179,50,000 among the lease deposit.

The defendant continues to possess and use the above apartment, and is not acceptable even after the investigation is commenced.