Housing Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2-ro 0

Gu, Sil Gu, Gu, Sil Gu, Do, ○

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

On June 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was the reporter of the media culture department of the “○○○○○○”, the Defendant: (b) entered the ○○○○ Broadcasting (○○○) building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, into the office of the first floor union without having access to the 13th floor through the 5th floor of the above building without having access to the 40th floor; (c) entered the 13th anniversary of the same day; (d) entered the 43th anniversary of the news department office. Thereafter, the Defendant requested to gather news related to the report published by the Democratic Broadcasting Working Committee under the ○○○ Labor Union, which was working at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○; (d) requested to do so on the grounds that there was no prior promise to gather news; and (e) made a request to prevent the Defendant from leaving the 2nd place without having access to other questions.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not comply with the demand from the victim to leave.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement made by a witness Kim ○ and Park ○○;

1. Results of the reproduction of CCTV images and viewing;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Efafics by the defendant's intrusion;

1. An investigation report (to secure a list of regular visitors);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 319(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. First, the defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the victim's request for the withdrawal of the defendant's request for coverage cannot be seen as a legitimate request for withdrawal, and that the defendant's act does not constitute an element for the crime of non-compliance with the removal, since it does not harm the peace of residence

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by this court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, ① to enter the above ○○○○○○○○ building, the Defendant was registered as the entranceer and issued a certificate of entrance. In the case of ordinary people, the Defendant can enter the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s request for temporary entry to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

v. n.

2. Next, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant's act was an exercise of the right to free access by the Information Institute under Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc., or an act that does not violate social rules and thus constitutes a justifiable act. However, in light of various circumstances as seen in the above paragraph (1), it is difficult to view that the defendant's act did not enter ○○ building through legitimate procedures, and that the defendant's act of refusing the victim's legitimate refusal to leave the Information Institute is not an act that does not violate social rules. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion is also rejected.

v. n.