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

On October 27, 2014, the Defendant and C duly selected the second management body at the management body meeting held in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building. The Defendants asserted that the second management body selected the Defendant Company E as the controlled entity of the said D Building. The victim F operated G, a controlled entity selected by the first management body, and the Defendant and C did not transfer the management body to the Defendant and C, by asserting the invalidity of the resolution of the management body meeting.

Accordingly, around 10:40 on March 16, 2015, the Defendant and C installed a locking device at the entrance of the electrical equipment box box in the 14th floor managed by the victim, on the grounds that the victim did not have the right to manage, C damaged the locking device equivalent to KRW 56,000 at the market price by using the Raber and the monmon flagner, and the Defendant prevents the victim from accessing the locking device.

As a result, the defendant jointly with C has impaired the utility of the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Submission of a written estimate), investigation report (H and staff I telephone statements hearing);

1. Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 366 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016);

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act constitute legitimate execution of duties for building management.