Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is the representative director of the F Co., Ltd. who is the owner of the building building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the defendant A is a director of the above company.

Defendants asserted the right of retention in front of the above building and recruited containers installed by the victim G corporation to move to another place without the consent of the victim.

On October 26, 2014, at around 04:00, the Defendants were using the amount of KRW 9,710,000 at the market price, including the victim’s bed, i.e., ten thousand, seven hundred and seventy-one,00, and the CCTV recording equipment equivalent to KRW 2,871,976 at the market price, in which the CCTV recording equipment was installed, as well as KRW 5,00,00 at the market price, to the H container storage when the victim was unable to know at all.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of each of the Defendants

1. Statement of the police statement to I;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the statutes governing a written estimate;

1. Defendants: Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendant A and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that Defendant A and the victim’s defense counsel move a container on which they claim the right of retention, but not only the question whether the victim’s right of retention is recognized, but also the above act of the Defendant does not constitute elements of the crime of causing property damage, and thus, it does not constitute a crime.

According to each of the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, Defendant A can be acknowledged as having moved the container that the victim had installed and managed by asserting the right of retention at the time and place indicated in the above crime to another place without the consent of the victim.