Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On January 2018, the Defendant allowed the Defendant to enter the farmland owned by the victim C, which was located in the Gyeongdong-gun B, from January 2018, the Defendant: (a) had the victim brought about for farm life at the entrance of the container entrance that was owned by him/her; and (b) had him/her he/she he/she he/she he/she accumulated the

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of containers with no knowledge of the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial testimony of witnesses D and C;

1. Some of the police statements made to D or C;

1. Photographss and investigation reports on the scene of damage (the defendant and defense counsel shall not commit any crime by doing any act to exercise the right of retention;

However, the Defendant asserted that embling the instant land was conducted only on the ground that it was not related to the construction cost of the Defendant, and the container was not related to the construction cost of the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the act of piling up the upper door before the entrance was intended to exercise the right of retention, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The portion not guilty under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which is attracting a workhouse;

1. point of damaging farmland;

A. On January 2018, 2018, the Defendant: (a) prevented the Defendant from entering the farmland owned by the victim C, which is located in the Gyeongbuk-gun B, by piling up more than 10 sides of the charges by using a digging machine on the access road in the farmland owned by the victim C.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of farmland owned by the victim.

B. According to the evidence as seen earlier, since the Defendant offered a claim for construction cost on the land owned by the victim, he/she is entitled to exercise a lien by reserving the right to access the said land on the access road to the said land until repayment of the claim arising with respect to the said land is made.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the above facts charged do not constitute a crime.