Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

around 15:50 on April 21, 2014, the Defendant cut off the entrance door of the building in front of the victim D in Pyeongtaek-si C, and the “F in which E exercises its right of retention,” and removed a warning letter equivalent to KRW 5,000 on the entrance, which was attached to the entrance, as his hand, and damaged the victims’ property equivalent to KRW 19,000 in total.

around 11:30 on May 10, 2014, the Defendant removed the locks amounting to KRW 7,000 at the market price set up at the knife of the building site, which is the sum of KRW 236,00,00 in the market price owned by the victim D, E installed at the knife of the building site, for the purpose of exercising the right of retention, and the knife of the factory entrance in the vicinity, and removed locks amounting to KRW 7,000 in the market price set up at the entrance of the factory in the vicinity, and removed the right-hand side of the door, the container adjacent to the wall, and the container installed at the inner left-hand side of the door, and damaged the sum of the market price set up at KRW 208,00,00 in the market price, which is the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Application of a written estimate or each field photograph Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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 defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that since the victims illegally occupied the F building in the Dispute Resolution Fund and interfered with the F's business during the exercise of the lien, the victims' property established by the victims was inevitably damaged, which constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and thus, it does not constitute an unlawful act.

However, it is reasonable, on the basis of specific circumstances, to determine the illegality of any act that does not violate the social norms and that it is reasonable for the purpose of being justified.