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

The Defendant, who is engaged in the construction business under the trade name of “G,” was awarded a subcontract from I for the construction of a window 13 new construction works among the 13 new construction works in Pyeongtaek-gun H-gun H-gun around September 2016, and completed the construction work around April 2017 upon receiving a subcontract from J for the construction of a scroke, among the new construction works in question around December 2016.

1. The Defendant, inasmuch as the fact of intrusion on a structure and damage to property did not occupy the above house at the time, he had the right of retention, iced the exercise of the right of retention on the ground that he did not receive part of the construction cost from J even though he was unable to exercise the right of retention.

Accordingly, around 10:00 on August 2, 2017, the Defendant entered the said electric power resource house without permission through the window that was not corrected, and occupied the said electric power resource house without permission. On the outer wall of the building, the phrase “right of retention” was licked with the phrase “right of retention” on the outside wall of the building, and brought the clothes, leeps, etc. in the building.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the electric power source house, which is a building managed by the victim K, without permission, and damaged the building owner's electric power source house to require non-repair.

2. Although the Defendant was unable to exercise the right of retention at the above time and place, the Defendant sent the phrase “the right of retention” as in the foregoing paragraph 1, and posted the banner “B during the exercise of the right of retention” on the outer wall of the building so that people visiting the site in order to receive a sales consultation, who visit the site may be mistaken as if there was a legitimate person of the right of retention on the said electric source house.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the sale of the victim M& corporation, which is the company in charge of selling the place by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement made with K and N;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (the occupation of a structure) and the Criminal Act;