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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 201, the Defendant removed the locks of the entrance door set up by the victim D from Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Building C, 202 and replaced it with another locking device.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the above 202 entrance door locker owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to D;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant’s act does not constitute a crime because the illegality of the defendant’s act is eliminated, since the victim inevitably destroyed the locking device installed by the victim in order to continue to exercise the right of retention in the course of exercising the right of retention by occupying 202 as indicated in the judgment of the defendant.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, etc., the act as stated in the judgment of the defendant does not constitute self-help under the Civil Act (Article 209(2) of the Civil Act) so that the possessor may immediately exclude the perpetrator from the possession of the object and recover it, and the right of retention is extinguished due to the loss of possession (see Article 328 of the Civil Act). However, if the possession is deprived of the possession through legal procedures, the possession would not have been lost (see the proviso of Article 192(2) and Article 204 of the Civil Act).

Therefore, we cannot accept the above arguments of the defense counsel.

Parts of innocence

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s intrusion around May 23, 2010.