However, with respect to Defendant B, it shall be for 2 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A

A. Around September 8, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victims by attaching the F Building G heading lock locking device of a sum of KRW 300,000 of the market price owned by the victim D and E in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

B. On September 2017, the Defendant: (a) called “B” who was located in the Seocho-dong, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu); (b) had B enter the said F building G, the victim E house, and had B interfered with the victims’ residence.

Therefore, around September 8, 2017, B entered the above F building G, thereby infringing upon the victims' residence.

Accordingly, the defendant instigated the above victims to intrude into the victims' residence.

2. Around September 8, 2017, Defendant B entered the victim D and the said F building G, a house of the victim E, and invaded upon the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A certificate;

1. A service contract for business;

1. Application of a copy of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendant A of the pertinent legal provision applicable to the crime: Articles 319(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 319(1) (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of suspended execution: Judgment on Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. As to Defendant A’s assertion

A. Defendant A, while occupying the instant building H as the exercise of the right of retention, was accused of having violated the structure, etc., but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that it constitutes “the exercise of the right of retention” by a prosecutor.

Accordingly, the Defendant considers that the act recorded in the facts charged is legally permissible, and described in the facts charged to exercise the right of retention.