However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) conducted the execution of the Plaintiff’s winning judgment (which became final and conclusive on November 25, 2014, 2014 group 2665, December 25, 2014) in favor of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit for housing name order filed by the Gangwon-do East Sea C, 301, and D against E; (b) around 13:10 on the same day, the Defendant revoked the possession of the said 301 possession of the said 301, and completed the execution of the real estate transfer of the said possession to D at around 15:38 on the same day.

Nevertheless, the defendant was unfairly delivered the above 301, even though D had no right to do so.

I think, the executive officer left the above 301 and D did not enter the D by breaking the above 301 and replacing the door locks with new lockeds.

In this respect, the defendant invadeds on the real estate which was named or delivered by compulsory execution, and has harmed the utility of compulsory execution by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement by each prosecutor's office with respect to E and G;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a real estate delivery notification protocol;

1. Relevant Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (in the event of poor quality of the crime, but there is no record other than those subject to punishment once again, and the circumstances of the case, etc. are considered)

1. The gist of the assertion and the defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the defendant was true, but the defendant's act of preventing execution D with no possessory right as a legitimate possessor does not infringe the utility of compulsory execution of real estate.

2. The offense of infringing on the utility of the compulsory execution of real estate under Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act shall be committed by intrusion on the real estate, or by other means, which is already ordered or delivered by compulsory execution.