Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

No person shall intrude on any immovables expelled or delivered by any compulsory execution, or impair the utility of such compulsory execution by any other way.

Nevertheless, around 15:00 on September 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) delivered the said real estate to E by delivery execution by the enforcement officer D affiliated with the Seoul Central District Court on September 22, 2014; (b) removed the key machine and entered the said real estate.

Accordingly, the defendant invadeds on the real estate which was named or delivered by compulsory execution, thereby impairing the utility of compulsory execution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation report (report on hearing statements by suspects and related persons), investigation report (report on hearing statements by the officer in charge of the performance office);

1. Application of the statutes to a copy of the Supreme Court ruling, a copy of execution protocol of delivery of real estate;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 140-2 (Selection of Fine)

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. After receiving the decision to suspend compulsory execution, the Defendant received the text of the decision to suspend compulsory execution at the office of execution officer, and received the answer that he will enter the office of the case where the application was filed for the suspension of compulsory execution, the attorney at the office of this case

Therefore, as there is no perception of illegality of the defendant, the intention is dismissed.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the execution officer in charge of the delivery of the building of this case, unlike the defendant's assertion, states that the defendant did not file an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the execution office, and that there was no fact that he received the above written decision, and that the head of G Secretariat of the law firm G, which the defendant consulted, brought a question of the decision to the execution officer on the ground that the above building was insufficient.