Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant involved in the destruction of and damage to property at the request of a new lessee (hereinafter “the intelligence of this case”).

(2) The lock installed by the victim (hereinafter “the lock of this case”) is solely a set set of locks to set up by cutting off booms, and separating the cover of this case.

2) Since it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had impaired the utility of the building, the crime of causing property damage is not established. 2) The Defendant did not memory the first floor of the house located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”). Since the instant building had already been occupied by the Defendant prior to the occurrence of the instant building, the crime of causing property intrusion is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor opened and opened the instant property damage and damage by means incidental to the gate. Accordingly, the Defendant requested changes in the part of the facts charged pertaining to “the victim injured the use of locks equivalent to KRW 5,000 in the market price installed in the middle door.” to the effect that “The Defendant applied for changes in the amendment of an indictment to the effect that “The locks equivalent to KRW 5,000 in the market price cannot play a role as a correction device because he was unlocked.” This Court permitted the changes in the subject of the judgment.

However, the above damage and damage of property is in a concurrent relationship between the crime of intrusion upon residence which the court below found guilty and the crime of violation of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced to the entire crime pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is erroneous.