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

Defendant was employed as a pastor in the post of the D church located in Mapo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and was dismissed from office and dismissed from office at the Em Union around January 9, 2018.

On January 26, 2018, the Jeonju District Court decided to prohibit the exercise of the authority of delegated pastors by the Defendant as the debtor, to prohibit all assemblies, such as worships and party meetings, and to prohibit access to the main party and its surrounding facilities, and to implement the said decision in a manner that attached two public notices to the main door door door, one door door, and one door door door, etc. on January 31, 2018.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on February 6, 2018, entered the headquarters of the above D church without permission, into the building managed by G from around 20 to around 21, 2018, by entering the same as the list of crimes in attached Form 43 times from around 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for reports on occurrence and internal investigation;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include the following: (a) there are extenuating circumstances to consider that the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act resulted in the instant crime in the course of delivering worships for the believers following the Defendant in the dispute process of the D church; (b) the victim’s temporary president and the Defendant agreed to be aware of all the disputes after the instant case; and (c) the victim wanted to dismiss all the disputes; and (d) the Defendant was the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment.