Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) exercised a lien on the ground that he did not receive KRW 750,000,000 for the construction cost from the Taesong Construction Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., a construction contractor at the construction site, and (b) opened a entrance door and an entrance door and without permission, and (c) entered the said apartment 304,000 won.

2. The term “D” means the following: (a) the flock card written in letters was flicked by E, the victim flick Construction Co., Ltd., the contractor, removed the said flock card; (b) the employees E, the victim flick Construction Co., Ltd, installed a flick card at the same place on September 13, 2013; and (c) interfered with the victim’s construction or management of the building by force or fraudulent means. (d) On September 27, 2013, the Defendant causing property damage: (a) on the same ground, at the same place, damaged another’s property by using the red frame on the glass of the above apartment building on the same ground.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing photographs on September 28, 2013;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for the crime, the choice of penalties, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in a workhouse;

1. On September 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00 on September 27, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged, the Defendant damaged another person’s property by using red presses on the outer wall of the apartment building at the site of the new construction of the “Seoul apartment in the course of exercising the right of retention.”

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is on the outer wall of the apartment in this case on the date stated in the facts charged.