Defendant

B The Defendant I shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won, and the fine of 1,000,000 won, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a person who asserts a lien on D apartment 802, and Defendant I paid 24 million won to B from August 2008 to occupy the above apartment, and the victim E owns the above D apartment 802 at the successful bid on June 15, 2012.

The Defendants conspired, from June 15, 2012 to August 30, 2015, the said D Apartment No. 802 owned by the victim.

Despite the request, it interfered with the real estate lease and sale business of the victim by occupying the place without permission and not leaving it.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Any statement concerning the Defendants in part of each protocol of interrogation of the police officer

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A certificate of all registered matters;

1. Decision on the disposition of the price of the gold paper which interferes with 2012Kahap 326 business; and

1. Judgment by the Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap 31852 confirmation of the absence of lien;

1. Judgment of the court on the method of water sources 2013Na 20042

1. Text of the decision on the delivery order of H real estate by the Suwon District Court;

1. Declaration of intention and waiver of a movable;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of J as a copy of each self-written statement;

1. The Defendants: Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; and Articles 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the said Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [The Defendant and his defense counsel all objective facts acknowledged, but the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the victim of the apartment building in the judgment below is a registration invalidation of the cause caused by an unlawful act of disposal. Thus, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

The argument is asserted.

On the other hand, it can be seen that there is a legitimate right of possession of the apartment in the judgment of the Defendants, as recognized by the evidence of the judgment, the progress of the related civil and filing case, and the defendants.