1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a building contractor who operates B.

around 11:00 on October 25, 2015, the Defendant entered the residence of the victim, which goes beyond the fence, on the ground that the victim does not open the door in the residence of the victim D (31 tax) of the victim D(C victim D(31) of the Namsung-gun, Namsung-gun, and invaded the residence of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement made to the effect that the defendant has entered his/her place of residence beyond his/her body on October 25, 2015, among the statements made by the defendant in the court, without the consent of the victim;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 319 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s act of entering the victim’s residence was justifiable, on the grounds that the construction of the victim’s housing was not completed, and the construction materials remains on the inside of the residence.

However, even if the construction of the victim's housing requested by the defendant was not completed, the construction materials owned by the defendant were left in the residence, and the victim had a claim for the construction cost of the above construction.

Even if the Defendant’s act of entering the above construction and return of owned objects or acquisition of a lien, it is not permissible to allow the Defendant to intrude into the residence by unlawful means, not by a legitimate legal procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do654, Apr. 12, 2007, etc.). Therefore, as long as the Defendant intrudes into the residence beyond the fence without the consent of the victim, this constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence, and the said act by the Defendant cannot be deemed as constituting a justifiable act under the Criminal Act. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted.