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

The Defendant leased the instant parking lot from Seo-gu, Busan and D (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) to February 26, 2014 to March 25, 2019 and has the right to the instant parking lot.

The Defendant: (a) from August 22, 2016 to October 15, 2016, the victim used the instant parking lot as a parking lot for “Gel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) located in the Seo-gu Busan F, without paying the user fee for the instant parking lot; (b) obstructed the victim’s business by preventing the entrance of the instant parking lot from using the instant parking lot for the vehicle and the fence from August 22, 2016 to September 10, 2016; and (c) obstructing the victim’s business by preventing customers from entering the parking lot using the vehicle and the pents. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27517, Sep. 11, 2016 to Oct. 15, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27794, Oct. 15, 2016>

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement by the witness J;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police investigation reports;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 314(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion;

A. Since the victim used the instant parking lot without any title while operating the instant telecom, the victim’s act of running the telecoming business using the instant parking lot is legitimate.

of this case without permission, and send a certificate of content that the defendant requires the victim to suspend the use of the instant parking lot without permission

Although the victim continued to use the instant parking lot, the Defendant’s possession of the instant parking lot was restored by doing the act as stated in the facts constituting the crime.