Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the head of the partnership before the redevelopment partnership, the victim C is the head of the above partnership, the above partnership has legal disputes over the status of the victim's president in the above partnership, and the B redevelopment partnership office in Gyeonggi-si has been managed by the victim since August 19, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, at around 07:15, the Defendant closed the above office in front of the building where the said office is located, and told E, who is aware of the fact that the Defendant did not manage the said office, had the right to manage the said office and enter the said office, which read, “E shall close and adjust the office of the Association,” and let E enter the said office through the said office window, and opened the iron door through the said office window, opened a glass door and opened it inside the said office.

Accordingly, the defendant invadeds on the building managed by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting to the defendant's partial statement C, on-site photographs of the police statement, the occurrence of CCTV images closures;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act regarding the order of provisional payment under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is acknowledged when the possessor’s right of self-defense under Article 209(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is recognized at the time when there is a risk of the deprivation or obstruction of possession without the deprivation of possession. The possessor’s right of self-defense under Article 209(2) of the same Act can recover possession with his own ability within the limited scope at the time when the possession was deprived (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1416, Mar. 26, 1993). The act of defense by the possessor of the right of self-defense against the act of deprivation of possession or the act of escape by the possessor of the right