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

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around the second floor of the 'C' building in Osan-si, Osan-si; (b) installed corrective devices on the second floor of the building with the second floor for the purpose of exercising the right of retention; (c) destroyed the unlocked parts of the construction; and (d) invaded into the room in which the victim occupies the second floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Each written statement in DNA (including attached data);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for a crime;

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

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

1. The defendant asserts that since the right of retention, which the victim asserts on the second floor of the building in this case, is false, the crime of causing property damage and intrusion cannot be established against the defendant.

Since the legal interest protected by the law is the crime of intrusion upon a house, or the crime of intrusion upon a house, building, room, etc., the issue of whether the resident or the person in possession has a legitimate authority to reside, manage, or occupy the house, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime. Even if the illegal possessor in private law has no legitimate authority, his possession is deemed to be under the possession so long as he does not leave his possession through legitimate procedures. In such a case, the de facto peace should be protected. Thus, even if the right holder in private law intrudes upon the house, etc. without following due procedures against the will of the resident, management, and occupant, the crime of intrusion upon a house is established.

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1429 delivered on April 24, 1984