Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On July 24, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny at the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) on two years and six months on September 9, 2017, and completed the execution of the sentence in the lawsuit of the first intersection of the North Korean Branch.

around 13:44 April 16, 2018, at the entrance of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment building 102, Dong 102, Dong 102, to enter the above 102 unit, and to enter the said 102 unit, to which other apartment building 102, the defendant met with the 102 unit of the above apartment building, and to which the 102 unit of the 102 unit and the 1204 unit of the above apartment building was worn into the victim's residence using the stairs, and to which the 10th unit of the above 102 unit 1204 unit 1204 unit 120

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in court (the purport that the defendant's entry into the public stairs and corridor of the above apartment in the same manner as stated in the facts charged is appropriate);

1. Report on internal investigation (Detection and analysis of a suspect), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (to analyze CCTVs in places where a suspect has occurred);

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime. Article 319 (1) of the same Act (Selection of Penalty)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion apartment building is a place where many people can house, and the defendant's entry into the above apartment is not for the purpose of crime but for finding the debtor, and the defendant's act does not constitute "influence" because it is for gathering the friendship that had been living in the above apartment before several years.

2. Determination as to whether the Defendant’s entry into a public stairs, corridor, etc. of 102 apartment units C for the purpose as alleged above constitutes “influence” in the crime of intrusion upon residence can be made according to whether the said resident’s explicit or implied intent is against the victim’s explicit or implied intent.

According to the evidence mentioned above, the apartment 102 unit of this case can be found to have a locking device installed in the joint entrance.

The above apartment is based on the above facts.