A A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendant

B is a person operating an auction agency, and the defendant A is an employee of the agency.

Defendant

B around January 11, 2019, around the victim C, the victim C, who is exercising the right of retention, shall replace the entrance locker of the building F in the building E in the building E in Chungcheongbuk-do, the victim C, who is exercising the right of retention, and the defendant A removed the entrance locker of the above building on the same day according to the above order of the defendant G, and entered it.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to damage the building entrance owned by the victim C and intruded on the structure managed by the victim C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. The police statement of H;

1. All the registered matters, system security application, quotation, lien, and photographs related to destruction and damage (the defendant and defense counsel argued to the effect that the victims entered a building to confirm the condition of the building before the deadline for payment of the successful bid price in possession of the building in spite of the existence of a lien on the building in this case. However, since the crime of intrusion upon a structure is the protected legal interest and protection of the law, it does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and the existence of a person who has no right to reside in the building or have a right to access to the building should be protected even if he occupies the building. Thus, the crime of intrusion upon the building is established if the right holder intrudes upon the building without following the procedure as prescribed by the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 2006Do3137, Jul. 27, 2007; see, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3136).