Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from August 7, 2014, concluded a lease agreement with the victim C on September 25, 2014, stating that “the amount of guarantee money KRW 2 million, monthly rent KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent, and period of lease from September 25, 2014 to September 24, 2015” with respect to the instant building, which was possessed by the victim C for the exercise of the right of retention.

1. On September 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) had the lessee F and G change the entrance and exit correction devices installed by the damaged person to exercise the right of retention in the instant building; and (b) prevented the victim from using the entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

2. The Defendant: (a) had the lessee F and G substitute the entrance correction device in the same manner as, at the same time, at the same place as, paragraph (1) above; and (b) had the lessee F and G substitute the entrance correction device; and (c) had the Defendant reside in and occupied the instant building.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and interfered with the victim's exercise of rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police in relation to F and G;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on each judgment;

1. Relevant Article 323 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 323 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which have no record of criminal punishment against the defendant for the same kind of crime, and the defendant committed the instant crime in the course of disputing the existence of the victim’s right of retention, and there are some circumstances to take account of the circumstances (the current lawsuit on whether the victim’s right of retention exists is a right of retention).