A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a lessor who has been awarded a contract for an auction.

on March 31, 2017, Seongdong-gu Seoul around 18:00

C. The victim D, a lessee No. 102, entered the office by replacing the office entrance correction devices with a string, a string, a middle golf string, and a 11-type remaining in the office, and intrudes into the office, and concealed and damaged the office equipment as shown in the list of crimes No. 11 to 22.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a tax invoice for delivery of goods that D sent under 102;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act and Articles 319 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the Act”) of the Act on the Attractiond in the Nowon-gu Station provides that the Defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have any intention to intrude into residence and damage property, as he/she entered and disposed of goods with the permission of F, the lessee under 102 above the 10th floor;

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, the Defendant provided the Defendant with a message of 102 Kakaoo Kakao Kakao 102 at the 10th floor prior to the instant crime (28,29 pages of the investigation record). Although D did not provide the Defendant with a lease agreement to Kakao Kakao, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was a legitimate lessee, but the Defendant’s goods were 102 above the 102th floor by asserting that it was a legitimate lessee.

It was known that the issue will be raised at the time of compulsory opening.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant had committed the instant crime with the intent to accept it even if D later became a legitimate right of lease, and the above assertion is groundless)

The reasons for sentencing are shown in the trial of this case, such as the fact that there is no criminal record against the defendant and the fact that the damage has not been recovered.