The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case was: (a) from the beginning of March 2013 to May 13:40, 2013, the Defendant leased 10 houses, including (b) C, 201 through 204, 304, D, 201 to 203, 305, 403, 405, and 10 houses, which were owned by the victim D, the owner of the victim D, and (c) D, 201 to 204, 304, 201 to 203, 305, 405, and 405, without the consent of the victim, and caused the victims to reside in each of the above units.

2. In full view of each evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defendant, it is unclear whether the defendant had no legitimate lien or not.

However, if the defendant has illegally occupied each of the above buildings, from the time when the defendant commenced possession of the above Cdong and Ddong, the prosecutor of the structure was indicted by intrusion upon residence, but it is doubtful whether the defendant can be seen as the victim's residence.

Inasmuch as there are no special circumstances to regard the change in the occupancy pattern thereafter as an infringement of any new legal interest, the facts charged to the same purport are merely related to the circumstances after the criminal act that had already been committed as a result of a flood, such as an act after the death penalty, and it cannot be deemed that the commencement of possession of each building of the above defendant itself was intended to infringe upon the residence of the defendant, and thus, it cannot be punished.

Furthermore, if the defendant becomes a legitimate lien holder based on the right to claim reimbursement of expenses or the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment due to office management, the prosecutor's charge seems not to be an issue per se of the commencement of possession of the defendant.

The change of the occupation of each of the above charges is the direct possessor.