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

1. On December 3, 2016, around 10:00, the Defendant invaded upon a residence: (a) entered the password that the Defendant had known to the victim before the front door number key in order to install a CCTV to monitor the victim at the house of the victim D (n, 26 years of age) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) entered the password prior to the front door number key, and intrudes on the victim’s residence.

2. Around December 12, 2016, the Defendant refused to demand the victim to pay money from the victim’s house living room located in the above victim D on December 13:00 and received the victim’s demand to return money from the victim, but at around 14:00 on the same day, the Defendant was forced to leave the victim’s house without justifiable grounds until the police officer is dispatched.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol concerning interrogation of suspects to the prosecution regarding D;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence), Article 319(2) and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of refusing to withdraw), and selection of fines for the crime;

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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the defendant's defense counsel) (the defendant's defense counsel) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that in relation to the crime of non-compliance with the eviction of Paragraph 2 of the criminal facts, the defendant's defense counsel is entitled to receive payment from the injured party, and the victim's demand for payment. Thus, it does not go against social rules, and it is alleged that it constitutes a ground for denial of illegality. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, such as witness D's testimony, are that the victim's money received from the defendant was donated only at the time of mutual relation, and it does not seem that the injured party was legally obligated to return to the defendant.