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

1. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant, a creditor, conducted a real estate auction case (D) of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Incheon District Court of the Incheon District Court for the reason of a loan, and the Defendant was ordered to grant permission for the sale thereof to the above court. The Defendant, a debtor, did not have a claim against the construction price to be paid from the F, but the Defendant, a debtor, did not neglect the auction procedure for the above building and lower the successful bid price. The Defendant was willing to report a false lien in order to delay the auction procedure for the above building and reduce the successful bid price.

On December 19, 2013, the Defendant reported a false lien as if there was a lien against the Defendant, which was completed at the auction of the Incheon District Court located in Nam-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, with the amount equivalent to KRW 17.8 million as the secured claim, and as such, reported a false lien on January 29, 2014, as if there was a lien against E as the secured claim for the construction cost equivalent to KRW 21 million as the secured claim.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the fairness of auction by fraudulent means.

2. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) opened a door at the victim G located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu C or 202, and invaded upon the victim’s residence by opening a door at the victim G’s residence in an influent manner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness G's statutory statement;

1. The pertinent provision on criminal facts, Articles 315 (Interference with Auction), 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of interference with auction), and each of the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the crime of intrusion upon residence is not established since the defendant did not actually harm the peace of residents since he/she did not reside at the time of entering the above C202. Thus, according to the records, the victim was not a director of the above apartment at the time of the crime of this case.