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

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and Defendant B are married couple, and they are successful bidders of the D Medical Care Center building at auction, and victims E are currently exercising the right of retention because they did not receive the construction cost of the D Medical Care Center at present.

On February 7, 2017, the Defendants conspired to perform compulsory execution by mobilization of 40 persons who are enforcement officers and services, upon receiving an order to deliver real estate from the court, with respect to 'D medical care center' that is located in the main building located outside the G, which is the owner of the building located in Macheon-si, 10:45.

However, on the ground that the market value of the 1.90,00 won of the "in the exercise of the right of retention" that the victim installed in front of the hospital, front of the hospital, the front of the hospital, the tree, etc. is found, and the compulsory execution is carried out, the use of the string to remove the strings well, or to tear the utility of the property with a stacker.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant B's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness E and H;

1. Some statements concerning the Defendants in the police interrogation protocol

1. Application of photographic images, CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the criminal proceedings orders for provisional payment

1. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendants conspired to use the date and time stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the Defendants, and one banner, “in the course of exercising the right of retention,” which the victim installed at the place of the crime, would be easily set off, or would have impaired the utility of the property by tearing its knife.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendants engaged in the act of removing the string of banner at the time of the instant case, and managed the instant site by being employed by the victim.

The fact that H finds three banners away from the damaged time is recognized.

However, the records are recorded.