1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On February 26, 2013, the defendant C was awarded a successful bid in the name of C in the compulsory auction of the 145 square meters of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D site, which was conducted by the Seoul Central District Court.

On April 27, 2012, the victim E did not receive approximately KRW 58 billion of the construction cost from the owner F, and the victim occupied the above real estate after the lien was reported to the Seoul Central District Court and exercised the lien.

On August 12, 2013, at around 13:40, the Defendant sought to enforce a provisional measure against the transfer of possession with the enforcement officer of the above studio building, and the victim was unable to mobilize the employees of the security service company outside the studs to communicate with the enforcement officer and enter the building by using the studs in order to prevent the victim from entering the building. The Defendant entered the building 301, where the victim used for residential purpose and occupied the building.

Accordingly, the Defendant infringed upon the residence jointly with the employees of the security service company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

2. The police statement of E;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (a protocol of impossibility of executing provisional disposal of real estate);

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts;

2. The Defendant asserts that the illegality of the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act constitutes self-defense, as it prevents the victim from entering the studio of this case, which is owned by C, by illegally occupying the studio of this case under the pretext of exercising the right of retention, and thereby preventing the victim from entering the studio of this case.

However, according to the above evidence, the victim was not paid the construction cost for the building owner F of the studio building in this case and the studio in this case.