Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

1. While Defendant A constructed a D building at the time of sowing to the representative director of the Co., Ltd., but did not receive construction payment from the creative rate of Co., Ltd., the main owner of the construction, and was exercising the right of retention on the said building, Defendant A was willing to avoid entering the said commercial building by the person related to the said company, etc. from entering the said commercial building.

On January 26, 2017, the Defendant had B, who is an employee of the Defendant, install a studs (stopdown straws) on the wall around the sixth floor elevator in order to prevent other people from entering the sixth floor of the above building.

As a result, the Defendant instigated the Defendant to damage the front wall around the six-story elevator of the above building that was owned by the victim corporation for common use.

2. Defendant B, as described in the preceding paragraph, destroyed the above building by installing a hip column (stoppy mV) on the front wall around the sixth elevator of the building in which the victim corporation’s asset management loan was owned in common at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects by the prosecution against the Defendants

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Complaint;

1. On-site photographs and investigation reports (on-site photographs of the entrance and exit of the elevator of D building) (the Defendants asserted that since they engaged in any act described in the facts charged for the legitimate exercise of their rights as lien holders, such act constitutes justifiable acts as stipulated in Article 20

However, in order to prevent the deprivation of possession by the Defendants, it is difficult to see that the act of installing ten poppy volts on the wall around the instant elevator with a 10 poppy V was reasonable in its means and method, and that such act was an urgent and inevitable means.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion.