Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A The lessor and the victim C are lessees.

1. On April 9, 2017, at around 08:00, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property by separating the key to the number of the victim’s key installed on the ground that the lease contract was not terminated, from the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu D and the first floor (hereinafter “instant house”).

2. The Defendant infringed upon a residence at the time, place, as described in paragraph (1), separated the key from the number keys as above, and enters the first floor house occupied by the victim, and moves the victim’s articles inside the house out of the house, and intrudes upon the victim’s residence by flying vessels.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Investigation report (related to stenographic records submitted by the person under investigation);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a real estate lease agreement, a photograph (related to intrusion upon residence and damage to property), photograph (referring to the text message with the suspect who has submitted the truth), stenographic records (referring to the text message with the person who has submitted the objection);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for negligence;

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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s act in the part of the damage of property is excluded from illegality as a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

B. Since the Defendant thought that the victim was to have delivered the instant house to himself and entered into the instant house, there was no intention of intrusion, and the Defendant’s act is dismissed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

2. Determination

A. The Criminal Act concerning the damage of property.