If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is the president of the board business entity who has worked for the victim C.

1. On January 31, 2017, the Defendant infringed upon a residence: (a) around 08:40, the Defendant: (b) determined that the vehicle key was stored in the dormitory; and (c) forcedly opened the entrance door and intruded the victim’s residence without the victim’s permission, when the victim, who is in custody of the Company Company A and 402, did not work at the company and contact with the company; (d) the contact was interrupted; and (e) the business was finished due to the failure to use

2. On January 31, 2017, the Defendant damaged the said vehicle in a way that the victim was absent from work without contact after finding out the Grento vehicle parked in the front of the Franto E located in Osan City at Osan-si, and that the victim was released from work without contact with the company without contact with each other on the street, leaving the front of the vehicle at several times, so that the repair cost amounting to approximately KRW 450,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to C and H;

1. Field photographs, etc.;

1. The photograph replacing the key of the boarding house number;

1. Each investigation report [The defendant and his defense counsel claim that the residence recorded in the facts constituting the crime is the company's dormitory, and the victim who was the key of the company's vehicle at the time was absent without permission and entered the above place as stated in the facts constituting a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above place appears to have been used by the injured person as a residence, and the defendant entered the victim's residence by destroying the above residence number height, and could have been able to substitute the company's vehicle. In light of the above, the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules merely because the defendant and his defense counsel asserted.

The above assertion is made.