A. Although the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint expulsion) did not obtain an occupancy permit from D, a limited liability company that is the owner under Article 305 of the Daejeon Jung-gu C apartment, Daejeon, the Defendant entered the company for the Defendant’s director at around 11:00 on March 31, 2013, and entered the company’s director at around 305 on March 31, 2013, and he did not comply with the said company’s representative director G to leave the victim without any justifiable reason.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

B. On March 31, 2013, the Defendant destroyed the property by having the key business operator I remove the C Apartment 305 No. 305 No. 130,000 market price, which is owned by HAD located in Jung-gu Daejeon, Daejeon District.

2. Determination

A. In relation to the joint withdrawal, the witness G’s testimony is consistent with the facts charged, and each police protocol of G’s accusation and each police protocol of G also correspond to the facts charged. However, in light of the witness E, F, and J’s testimony and the police protocol of K’s police protocol, the above facts charged alone cannot be deemed to have been proven without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. With respect to the damage of property, E refers to the change of the locks of the entrance of this case, and the defendant asked the key phone number known to him to the mobile phone opening of the defendant to change the locks. In light of this, the witness G’s testimony, G’s complaint, each police statement, investigation report, and investigation report on G cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

3. According to the conclusion, innocence shall be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.