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

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

Criminal facts

Some of the facts charged were corrected.

1. On June 26, 2016, at around 13:00, the Defendant infringed on a structure: (a) was in front of the 201 office door of the Plaintiff, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., 201, located in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, and (b) opened by means of replacing the Serial key device installed on the above office door through the air without the consent of the victim F (E, 31 years of age) and entered into the said office. (b) The thief Defendant stolen (the date and time stated in paragraph (1), two copies of the settlement statement managed by the Victim F, and export contract, etc., kept in D office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Records of photographs and seizure at the scene of occurrence;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a certified copy of the corporate registry (34 pages of investigation records), a shareholder registry;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act (1) (the occupation of a structure intrusion), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

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. Reasons for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment;

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion acknowledged that the Defendant entered a corporation D (hereinafter “D”) office and brought two copies of the statement of settlement of accounts, as stated in its reasoning. However, the Defendant, as a two shareholder interest registration director of D, was entitled to access the above office to inspect accounting documents, and the Defendant violated the above office or stolen accounting documents.

(2) The above act of the defendant was an inevitable act for the rehabilitation of the above company in an urgent situation where E, a representative director, could not process the above company due to hospitalization despite the pending issues that need to be urgently handled such as the extension of the lending period of D and the attraction of rehabilitation funds. Thus, the above act of the defendant was an inevitable act for rehabilitation.