Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 2017, the Defendant: (a) invadedd the building managed by the Victim C by entering the said electric source house into the said electric source house through a glass window or entrance, which was not corrected, in the house complex located in Pyeongtaek-gun B, 2017.

2. On August 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the place indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the Defendant: (b) destroyed the utility of the property by a method that, by using a red frame on the glass door of the electric house owned by the victim D; and (c) removed and destroyed the locks of the house in question at the same time and at the same place, at the same time and place.

3. From July 2017 to August 2017, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s business operation by force, at the places indicated in paragraph (1), used as “right of retention” by using red presses as soon as possible on the house glass, and installing a crum card stating “in the course of exercising the right of retention,” and installing other locks after removing the door locks, thereby hindering the Victim C’s defect repair work, etc. by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, C, F, and G;

1. Obstruction photographs and on-site photographs of duties;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on construction works, a copy of the standard contract for construction works, and a copy of the defect repair works;

1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

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

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

1. The judgment and the defense counsel as to the assertion of a justifiable act under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (no record of crime exceeding the same kind or fine to the defendant, and the motive and circumstances leading to each of the crimes in this case) is a justifiable act, since each of the acts in the judgment of the defendant in this case is for the exercise of the right of retention.