A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant served as the president of the South-North branch of the Association C, an incorporated association, and was promoted around March 10, 2014, and was under dispute over the operation of the Association, D and D, the current president of the Association, and E, etc.

At around 14:00 on December 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) cut off and destroyed the door of the above office, which was corrected at the entrance of the victim E, who had been at the entrance of the above office, to be a locker in an amount of 5,000 won at the market price managed by the victim E; and (b) intrudes the entrance into the building managed by the victim after entering the above office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G (part);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including the E statement part)

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act (1) and the selection of fines, respectively, for the crime;

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

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the victim E-B is not a representative or an officer of the Association of this case, and thus, the defendant did not have the authority to possess the office of this case, and the defendant did so to enter the office of this case when he was requested by the person in charge of the Ministry of Environment, who is responsible for the management of the office of this case, to request the above office to leave the office of this case, and the defendant did not have the intent to commit damage to property or intrusion upon residence because he cut off the locks from G, who is a legitimate chairperson of the Association at the time, and made the words that he would be able to

2. The crime of intrusion on a judgment structure is a de facto protection of the peace and benefit of the dwelling, and thus the dwelling person or the guard may reside in the building or receive the guard from the dwelling person.