beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) heard from his father the phrase “if he lives in an apartment, he will reduce 1.5 million won per month from the company to which he belongs”; and (b) concluded an employment contract with the representative director D, a stock company representative director D to gather all about the ownership relationship and legal disputes of the apartment of this case; (c) occupied the apartment house house of this case, but (d)
There was no intention to infringe upon residence and interfere with business as soon as he/she immediately left the office.
2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court rejected the foregoing assertion based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
On February 20, 2013, the above evidence is considered as follows. ① Around February 20, the defendant entered into a labor contract with the representative director D of C, a company, under the condition that "the service employed by C, a company's employees or a company's employees shall not be able to take any room and reside in the apartment site of this case," and ② from the date and time, the defendant occupied the apartment site of this case. ② At the time, the defendant did not confirm all the relation of ownership and relation of rights and interests of the apartment house of this case. ③ The defendant was posted a notice of illegal possession before the company's employees or the company's employees from time to time in possession of the apartment house of this case. ④ After entering into a contract with D and D, all persons who occupied the apartment house of this case were punished for interference with their residence and business, and thus, the defendant's assertion that he had possession of the apartment house of this case can not be accepted.
3. Conclusion.