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

Defendant was a tenant of 202 building B in Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, and the victim C was the owner of the house of 202 above, and the Defendant did not return KRW 3 million out of the deposit amount of KRW 65 million under the pretext of restoration expenses and unpaid management expenses under the above 202. The Defendant entered the above 202, to repair the house directly and received a refund of the deposit money.

1. On February 5, 2016, around 20:10 on February 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) instead of informing the victim of the password number of the entrance door, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s property by having the name-free key business operator, who is unaware of the above circumstances, open a digital painting, which is owned by the victim of KRW 1.20,000,000, the market price of which is 120,000 won.

2. On February 6, 2016, around 08:00, the Defendant infringed upon his/her residence at around 202, the Defendant: (a) opened a front door by dividing the password of the digital painting newly installed by the Defendant; (b) opened the door door to the ward and the room; and (c) invaded upon the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C (victim);

1. Protocol of mediation;

1. Real estate contract;

1. Written estimate;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Character messages;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence and the selection of fines);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered the house in order to recover the leased deposit from the original state. As such, there was no intention of damage or intrusion, and there was a legitimate authority to enter the house.

2. The crime of intrusion upon residence is a matter of de facto protection of the law and thus, the resident or the legal interest.