Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of E in Ulsan-gun Group D, and the defendant B is the defendant's wife, who is the auditor of E.

The Defendants, along with F, established E, operated “G” franchise business as a partnership business, and caused disputes arising from distribution of profits, etc. Accordingly, the Defendants dismissed the Defendants from the representative director and the auditor of E, and appointed the victim H as the representative director on May 7, 2015, and the Defendants filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, filed an application for suspension of the representative director’s performance of duties and a provisional disposition for the appointment of the representative director, and received the appointment of the first lawyer from the court as an agent.

F, however, for the same year

6. Around September, 200, before the above court's decision was rendered, a comprehensive transfer of all the businesses of Eul, a corporation established by it, and around the 16th day of the same month, transferred the ownership of the K and factory buildings in the name of Ulsan-gun Co., Ltd. E to L, and the above J continued to lease the above land and factory buildings from L Co., Ltd. and continue the "G" franchise business.

On the other hand, the Defendants won the case by filing a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the transfer of the K and factory building in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Inc. in the name of the corporation E, and accordingly the ownership of the above land and factory building was transferred to E again in the name of the corporation around April 5, 2016.

The Defendants won in the civil lawsuit filed by them, and thereby, entered the above land and factory building that they operated the business by J Co., Ltd. on the basis of the fact that the ownership of the above land and factory building was restored in the name of Co., Ltd., and prevented J from doing any further business, and again, did so in order to continue running the “G” franchise business under the name of Co., Ltd. E.

1. The Defendants who intruded on structures.