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

around 14:00 on February 14, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the manufacturing and sales business of E by force by force by preventing the victim E, who used the above factory, from shipping out of the chilling door with D’s entrance door set up in a factory occupied by the victim D, which was leased by the victim D and occupied by the Defendant, into the factory, and intrudes into the shipbuilding factory, which is a building, by opening the entrance, and locking the entrance, and by preventing the victim E, who used the above factory from shipping out of the chilling door.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F, and E;

1. A protocol concerning the prosecution and the police interrogation of the accused;

1. On-site photographs to be submitted by complainants (net 12);

1. The Defendant changed to the purport that the factory prior to February 14, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “factory of this case”) was left alone, and that it did not constitute a crime of intrusion on a structure, given that the Defendant did not occupy and manage the victim D or E.

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, prior to February 14, 2017, the victims kept simple machinery in the factory of this case (in the investigation record 2:65,66 pages), office books and sticks were included in the calculation of tax revenue and loss, and documents were put in the calculation of tax revenue and loss, etc. (in the investigation record 2:67,27 pages). In addition, the victims operated freezing containers in the factory math (in the investigation record 1:54, 2:35, 36 pages). The victims were placed in a lock door entering the factory ma from G G-si, and a lock lock door, such as the entrance, the 1st floor door door of the factory building, the 2nd office door of the factory, etc. (in the investigation record 35, 59, 147 pages).

According to the above facts of recognition, the victims possessed the factory of this case before February 14, 2017.

As long as the defendant was aware of the above status, it seems that the defendant could have sufficiently known that he possessed the above factory.