The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On February 27, 2014, the Defendant took out a loan of KRW 330,00,00 from the Victim B (hereinafter “victim’s safe”) and, on the same day, set up a collateral security right against the Victim C, D (hereinafter “instant land”) and the wooden building on the ground thereof (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant to the Defendant’s safe on the same day, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 429,00,000,000, the debtor and the mortgagee as the victim’s depository.

However, around October 15, 2018, the Defendant removed the instant building without obtaining permission from the victim’s safe.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the object which is the object of the victim's safe right and obstructed the exercise of the rights of the victim's safe.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant and witness E in part;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of each register of real estate or each general building ledger;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 323 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Detention in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act of KRW 100,000 per day;

1. Suspension of sentence: Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of 500,000 won of the suspended penalty

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the building was not interfered with the exercise of rights because he obtained the consent of the victim’s safe, and the Defendant called to the person in charge of the loan of the victim’s safe to remove the building and to build a new building on the instant land. There was a question as to whether the superficies was established on the instant land, and the building was demolished upon obtaining his consent, along with the reply that the superficies was not established from E.

Therefore, the removal of the building of this case does not constitute obstruction of another’s exercise of rights.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to obstruct another’s exercise of rights is about the removal, construction, etc. of buildings to E.