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

1. Inflowment;

A. At around 06:00 on May 11, 2012, the Defendant entered the instant officetel No. 101, the victim-owned officetels No. 101 without the consent of the victim C in order to perform a toilet drainage work for the above officetels No. 202, the Defendant owned by the Defendant in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. At around 12:40 on May 11, 2012, the Defendant entered the instant officetel No. 101, which is the victim’s possession, to perform the toilet drainage construction of the said officetel No. 202, which is the Defendant’s possession, and again intruded the victim’s room.

C. On May 12, 2012, the Defendant entered the instant officetel No. 101, which is the victim, to construct a toilet drainage room for the instant officetel No. 202, which is owned by the Defendant, and intruded into the victim’s room.

2. On May 11, 2012, the Defendant, from around 06:00 to around 10:00 on May 12, 2012, 201, opened the instant officetel 101, which is owned by the victim C, in order to perform the drainage pipe construction, the Defendant opened a tent brush on the market value, which is the victim’s ownership, by opening a brush brush, and some of them were destroyed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act for the crime (the point of each intrusion, the selection of each fine), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act for the selection of punishment (the point of causing destruction and damage, and the selection of fines);

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

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant did not have any intention on the ground that the Defendant had been unaware of having committed the instant crime.

However, considering the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s intentional act is deemed to have existed even if there was no legal error, while it is recognized that there was no justifiable reason for the Defendant’s mistake in the law.