Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. A. Around August 5, 2015, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the victim G and actual owner of the building in the 8th floor of the Heung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the premise that “H: Defendant: (a) uniting the said building after remodeling it into an urban-type residential housing; and (b) uniting the said building after converting it into an urban-type residential housing; (c) divided profits into 4: 4:2; (d) Defendant will undertake remodeling construction; and (e) the construction cost shall be paid upon a loan after completion of construction.

After entering into the same business contract as above, the Defendant delayed the period of time due to the suspension of construction due to the lack of construction funds for the long time. H, a pipe, from October 1, 2015 to October 10, 2015, had the Defendant conduct remodeling works on behalf of the Defendant, “I” who is an terrier business entity, but did not find any difficulties in the amount of construction required by “I” as the enddoer failed to find out any difficulties in the amount of construction.

After that, under the agreement with H and the victim G, the Defendant resumed the construction according to the original agreement, but the construction was suspended due to the lack of funds for the construction, and other I’s employees, etc. were paid the unpaid construction cost, and occupied the instant building from January 10, 2016 to January 28, 2016. However, the Defendant reported that I’s employees, etc. were forced to leave the said people as they reported to interfere with the business due to the illegal occupation.

On December 4, 2015, the Defendant thought that, upon filing an application for compulsory auction against the instant building by the creditor J around December 4, 2015, the Defendant would be able to purchase a lower auction price together with an infinite investor if he/she exercised the right to retention in the building on the clear name that he/she had a claim for the payment of the construction price to the owner. He/she was aware of the fact that he/she was to prevent I from re-locating the building, and then he/she was able to do more work from February 9, 2016.