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

On March 19, 2019, the Defendant: (a) proposed that “A, known as a stock father, was released from the case where his parents were killed; (b) he entered a Cheongdong Building in which C remains because he could escape; and (c) would be employed as an employee in the future; and (d) followed the building that C remains in order to look at the movement of C according to the instructions of the said B.

1. At around 15:00 on March 20, 2019, the Defendant invadedd the above structure under the victim’s control, such as (i) the Seoul Gangnam-gu E-gu Seoul E-building managed by the victim D (the age of 27, south) by the Defendant; (ii) the lower limit to the first floor via the entrance of the first floor in order to kill the movement of C, and (iii) the internal examination.

2. On March 21, 2019, around 02:33, the Defendant intruded into the structure under the control of the victim, such as: (a) getting off the above paragraph (1) at the entrance of the first floor through the entrance of the first floor to the underground level; and (b) taking photographs, etc. for the same purpose.

3. On March 21, 2019, around 02:53, the Defendant intruded into the above structure under the control of the victim, such as examining the inside through the entrance of the first floor for the same purpose as the description in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on internal investigation (field search, etc.) and a CCTV image closure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the telephone call of police station investigators and suspect A telephone conversations during the Games);

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The fact that the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of parole is disadvantageous to the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order.

However, this case is against the defendant's wrong recognition of all crimes.