A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant: (a) leased a building No. 302 owned by the victim D (hereinafter “instant No. 302”) in Si interest-si; (b) moved to Jeju on October 10, 2015 due to the expiration of the lease agreement; (c) and (d) decided that the victim was the object of the building prior to the return of the lease deposit.

Since then, around October 29, 2015, the above building 302 had been in progress with a new revenueer’s gambling and decoration construction. Around October 29, 2015, the Defendant came to contact with the victim to return the remainder after deducting one million won by adding the repair cost, such as the alteration of toilets, etc., and the management cost, etc. when returning the lease deposit from E delegated by the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant changed the password of the 302 entrance from the lessor on October 30, 2015 to the E-gu F on October 30, 2015 so that the victim and the new tenant are allowed to enter.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the lease of the victim's building by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement;

1. A complaint filed by D;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (where data are attached, such as details of deposit of guarantee money);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting a crime and the choice of punishment: Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The order of provisional payment: Judgment on the assertion of innocence under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Where the lease is terminated, the accused of the allegation of innocence shall have simultaneous performance relationship between the obligation to return the deposit and the obligation to specify the object of lease;

However, even if the Defendant was a director in the instant case No. 302 and Jeju-do on October 10, 2015, the Defendant asserts that he was not guilty since he did not deliver the instant No. 302 to the victim. On October 30, 2015, the Defendant did not have the right to use and benefit from the instant No. 302 because he did not receive the deposit at the time of changing the current identification number.

2. The above evidence and the evidence.