If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

On February 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) entered the victim D, which is managed by the victim D in Gangwon-si, Gangwon-si; (b) opened the entrance for the purpose of photographing photographs; and (c) intruded into the structures owned by the said D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Statement of the first civil conciliation division of the Chuncheon District Court's original district court's branch court; and

1. Investigation report (to search the site and change facts of the crime, and to attach CCTV image data);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing Mesto photographs;

1. Article 319 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the issue of the provisional payment order, whether the instant structure constitutes the object of the crime of intrusion upon a structure, or not, the instant building asserted by the Defendant and his defense counsel was freely accessible through the entrance and exit from the side, it does not constitute “a structure managed”, which is the object of the crime of intrusion upon a structure.

Judgment

According to the evidence of the court below, the building of this case was established with guard reduction center, and the defendant entered the building of this case and went into the building of this case. According to this, it is judged that the building of this case was managed by the victim, and it is the object of the crime of intrusion into the building of this case.

Therefore, this part of the argument is rejected.

The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion as to whether the crime of intrusion upon a structure was committed or not, and the defendant did not know that the building was opened through the aspect of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant did not have any intention to intrude the structure.

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, that is, at the time when the defendant entered the building of this case, the victim's equipment was kept.