On July 14, 2016, the Seoul High Court received 46.3 million won and delayed interest thereon from the victim, etc., and at the same time rendered a judgment that the defendant shall deliver the loan loan loan loan loan loan bond No. d to the victim, etc. on November 24, 2015, and the victim, etc. deposited the above 46.3 million won and the delayed interest thereon as the defendant refused to receive them. Thus, the defendant shall deliver the loan No. d to the victim.

Nevertheless, at around 09:40 on September 20, 2017, the Defendant asserted the right of retention for the loan of this case and went into the loan of this case, which is managed by the injured person, and infringed on the victim’s structure.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant entered the instant loan D, such as the facts charged.

However, the crime of intrusion upon residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of residence. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that E and B completed the delivery of the loan of this case, which was possessed by the defendant at the time of the instant case, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

(2) the corporation has commenced the management of such corporation.

As it is difficult to see that the defendant entered the head of the Dong D of this case.

Even if the crime of intrusion is not established, it is not established.

1) The Defendant: (a) received a subcontract from F, a contractor for the instant construction of the instant loan from F, a building owner, and completed the electrical construction, etc.; (b) but failed to receive a direct payment from the building owner; (c) filed a lien claim from September 2014; and (d) claimed the lien and filed the instant loan D.