Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

around August 30, 2019, the Defendant is the representative of the (State) E E purchased from D with Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and C, and the victim F leased the above C from the above wife G to reside from around December 10, 2014.

The Defendant, around December 18, 2019, did not refund KRW 60 million of the rental deposit to G, a lessee, to G, but did not refund KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to F and H;

1. Registration of a real estate lease contract, a utility model contract, a letter of commitment, a statement of demand for water rates, a copy of a claim for return of a security deposit, a copy of a claim for return of a security deposit, or a house lease;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographic photographs inside the real estate of this case to a course of cutting down letters;

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

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

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

1. Judgment on the key issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion that the victim removed the electronic scambling installed in the front door of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and C (hereinafter "the instant house"). However, this electronic scambling has been installed without permission after the victim moved the instant house to the defendant. Thus, the removal by the defendant who is the owner of the instant house constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act or a self-help act under Article 23 of the same Act, and thus,

In addition, on October 31, 2019, the victim did not reside in the above house after leaving the house of this case.