Defendants shall be punished by each fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall use or benefit from any administrative property among the State property unless it complies with procedures and methods prescribed by the State Property Act or other Acts.

1. The Defendant, from January 1, 2005 to July 2, 2013, leased the warehouse of 60 square meters of the size on the land owned by the State Party B on the land of the Gu-U.S., Si-si, Si-si, Seoul, which is an administrative property owned by the State, to five million won of the deposit amount, and five million won of the annual rent, and used the said land without permission by placing the large air conditioners owned by the Defendant on the said warehouse and land.

2 Defendant B, from January 1, 2005 to July 2, 2013, from around July 2, 2013, the Defendant leased the warehouse of the assembly-type board with a size of 60 square meters on the above land owned by the State, which is an administrative property owned by the State, to A, with a deposit of 5 million won and annual rent of 500,000 won, without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement (as of the third trial date);

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant B concerning the police officer

1. Partial statements of each police interrogation protocol against Defendant A

1. Written accusation of the old and old market;

1. A written statement;

1. The application of the location map and photograph of current status, real estate lease contract, full certificate of registered matters, register of State property, and photographs;

1. Article 82 and Article 7 (1) of the State Property Act, respectively, shall apply to applicable provisions concerning the facts of crime and the selection of punishment;

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

1. The defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that the defendant, around January 1, 2005, the defendant, who entered into a lease contract with B, did not know that the above land was a village property and did not know that it was a state property, and that he became aware of such fact only after hearing from others about 2010.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant. B.