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

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the cause of the company, and the defendant B is the person who is engaged in the building rental business.

On January 2, 2013, around 09:20, the Defendants came to the house of the victim E, the victim No. 101 Dong 301, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building 101, and the Defendants came to the door through the door that the Defendants were in possession of the above 301 sales contract as security for the loans offered to the above Dara constructor, and the Defendants did not correct the invasion by taking advantage of the time when the victims were not in their house.

As a result, the Defendants conspiredd with the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning E;

1. Statement of each police statement of E;

1. Each written confirmation, Cash Receipt, resident registration abstract, and details of financial transactions;

1. Application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Articles 319(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of intrusion upon residence for the reason of the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") is a de facto crime of intrusion upon residence. Whether a resident or a guard holds a right to reside or a guard against a building does not depend upon the establishment of the crime, and even if a person who has no right to possess it occupies a building, peace of residence should be protected. Thus, even if a right holder intrudes on a building as a means of self-help as an exercise of the right, the crime of intrusion upon residence is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7044 delivered on March 15, 2007, 2006). Separate from what is the ownership of the building No. 301 written on criminal facts, the above facts constituting the crime appear to have been maintained in peace of de facto residence as to the building No. 301.

However, the Defendants are multi-household housing corporations, including the above 301, before they purchase the above 301.