The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

On May 1, 2016, at around 11:00, the Defendants came to the house of Victim F (F) located in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group E, and entered the house through the gate that was not locked to resist the victim and his G to refuse to communicate and to enter the house.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly intruded upon the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. In a part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect against the Defendants

1. Each image of evidence CDs and on-site records and video images;

1. According to the evidence of the judgment as to the Defendants’ assertion on the investigation report (the situation at the time of their dispatch, G and A’s statement), G did not want the Defendants to enter one’s house at the time of the instant case to the extent that the conflict between the Defendant’s husband and wife, the victim, and the son due to various legal disputes.

It is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants had the intent to intrude into the victim’s residence against the victim’s will, and there was the victim’s implied or presumed consent, or there is no other circumstance where the Defendants’ act might be justified.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, applicable to the order of provisional payment;