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

From August 1, 2015, the Defendant engaged in the management of the building as the representative director of D Co., Ltd., a controlled entity of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Building C, and the victim E is a person who operates F on the first floor below the above building.

The Defendant opened a toilet door, and conspired with G, H, I, and J, an employee of the Defendant company, by means of moving the goods in the place, which was possessed by the victim while using the toilet of the first floor above the above building as a warehouse.

1. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant instructed G, H, I, and J to open the toilet door and enter the toilet near the first floor of the building underground used by the damaged person as a warehouse. G, H, I, and J also opened the toilet door and intruded into the toilet.

2. At around 14:00 on August 27, 2015, the Defendant instructed G, H, I, and J to open the toilet door and enter the toilet, and G, H, I, and J also opened the toilet door and intruded into the toilet.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the building managed by the injured party jointly with the above G.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect to the prosecution of some part of the defendant (including the whole part of the interrogation);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer in relation to G;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the work site;

1. Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; Act No. 319(1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense

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 to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order constitutes a justifiable act committed by the defendant as a manager of the above building for the purpose of preventing a fire. However, the above mentioned acts were viewed.