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

On December 16, 2013, at around 10:00, the Defendant opened a ridge and arbitrarily entered the lock door of the Victim AD located in Daejeon Jung-gu AC 201.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness AD;

1. Investigation report (the confirmation of the owner of this case 201);

1. Application of lease contract or recording record Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a legitimate resident under the above 201, and the Defendant asserts that there is no intention of intrusion upon his/her residence. As such, the Defendant consistently stated from the investigation agency to the investigation agency to the court that he/she had entered into a lease agreement and resided in the above 201. Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the charges against the Defendant are sufficiently recognized.

① According to Article 9 of the Real Estate Security Trust Deed, a limited liability company AE is in trust with an international trust company at the time, and Article 9 of the Real Estate Security Trust Deed, a limited liability company is in fact able to continue to possess and use the trusted real estate, but it cannot reduce the value without prior consent of the international trust company.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that a limited liability company AE leases the above No. 201 to the victim's 300,000 won per month without a deposit, and the term of lease to the extent of the completion of sale is within the scope of the right because it appears that the value of real estate is not reduced. Therefore, the above lease contract is valid.

② The Defendant alleged that he was sold in lots the above 201, but the ownership transfer registration is made because he did not fully pay the balance.