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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, who owned B, operated the precious metal store with D’s 13 square meters of 13 square meters of 13 square meters of 1st floor among the buildings owned by B, Busan Summer-gu C and 3rd above ground, and from around 2015, the Defendant operated the precious metal store with the trade name “E”.

On September 11, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the name of the building (2015da23133) with the Busan District Court on the grounds of unpaid rent from B. On April 15, 2016, the Defendant decided to deliver the said store to B and delivered the said store to B under the direction of the Busan District Court execution officer (2016No. 6290) pursuant to the real estate delivery notification protocol (2016No. 6290) due to the judgment around December 28, 2016.

Nevertheless, on May 2017, the Defendant arbitrarily replaced the entrance and electronic heat chain devices so that no one can enter the said stores, thereby impairing the effectiveness of compulsory execution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The recording of F or G part of the third protocol of trial;

1. The recording of statements by H or I in the fourth trial record;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A real estate delivery notification report, and a real estate delivery execution report;

1. Determination of each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 18, 19) as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel

1. The gist of the assertion is that a store of 13 square meters on the 1st floor among the buildings of the 13th floor area in Busan Seo-gu, Busan Seo-gu, and the 3rd floor (hereinafter “instant store”) purchased ownership from G and acquired ownership. He requested the Defendant to open the door of the instant store from G to be received, and the Defendant obtained permission from G, and the Defendant only replaced the Defendant’s husband F and H with the entrance electronic heating system, and thus, the Defendant did not infringe on the compulsory execution effectiveness.

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant’s act constitutes an act that infringes on the effectiveness of compulsory execution against the instant store.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel are without merit.

(1)