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

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be the defendant for 10 days.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the building in Gangseo-si, 301, which resides in the victim C (47 , inn), and the victim and the person who have a dispute over the amount of the deposit at present.

On December 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) dismantled the entrance locker, which was corrected without the consent of the victim, and replaced with a new locker, on the ground that the victim’s 08:30 of Gangseo-si D and 301 was a new place in which the victim was living and managed; (b) dismantled the entrance locker without obtaining the consent of the victim; and (c) replaced it with a new locker; and (d) invaded the victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: (a) the Defendant, on or before December 23, 2016, was the date of the instant crime, that the damaged person deducteds the Defendant from the Defendant, and was in fact in a state where the password was stated by notifying the Defendant of the password; (b) even if the victim was at December 23, 2016, when the victim changed the password of the unit, prevented the Defendant from entering the unit of the unit and left part of the unit, such as the bit and bit, etc., as a legitimate right of the lessor, the Defendant asserts that the leased object was not acquitted; (c) however, it is obvious that the lessor, who did not receive the object of the lease from the lessee, arbitrarily dismantled the unit of the unit against the lessee’s will and intrudes on the leased object, and thus,

Although there are no other circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, family environment and support relationship, and the motive for the instant crime, it is obvious that the Defendant committed an unlawful act of intrusion even though it committed an obvious intrusion.