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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Around November 2007, the Defendant, as the representative director of a corporation B, contracted with C Co., Ltd. to construct a new “H” on each land of 1,015 square meters in Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan; 345 square meters in forest land; 1,499 square meters in F Forest land; 78 square meters in G forest land; and 3 stories below ground and 8 stories above ground; and (2) suspended the construction of the said building due to the aggravation of the financial standing of C Co., Ltd.

On November 11, 2014, the victim I purchased the above land from K Co., Ltd. that was entrusted with the above land from K Co., Ltd. as a person operating J Co., Ltd.

Then, since 2015, B corporation filed a lawsuit against J corporation for the injunction against interference with possession of the building and the injunction against possession recovery of the building, but all of the lawsuits against J corporation were finalized on January 2017. On the other hand, with respect to the lawsuit of demanding removal of building, etc. filed by J corporation against B corporation and C corporation, the Busan District Court decided on February 15, 2017 that C corporation had acquired ownership of the building, but it had no right to possession on the building, and that there was no right to possession on the building. Accordingly, the Defendant was fully aware that it was impossible to assert the lien on the building.

On March 18, 2008, B Co., Ltd. prepared at the time of borrowing from L Co., Ltd. a construction right and a memorandum of waiver of a right of retention to the construction cost to be paid in relation to the building construction work at the time of borrowing from L Co., Ltd., and recognized that the Defendant could not claim a right of retention for the building in this case.

Nevertheless, around February 16, 2017, the Defendant intruded into a building by entering the building without the consent of the victim under the pretext of exercising the right of retention on a building where the construction works managed by the victim installed in the above land was suspended.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Second installment;