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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened a 1st floor door door without the consent of the victim; (b) entered the said apartment and intruded on the structure of the victim, under the name of the victim D, which is owned by the victim D, Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, by the fact that he was delegated by F who illegally occupied the said apartment, with the possession of the said apartment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Documents of decision on provisional disposition;

1. Certification Board, etc.;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning non-prosecution decisions;

1. Relevant Article 319 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant alleged that he/she was duly entrusted with possession by the lien holder

I think, since February 17, 2014, the support for possession began from around February 17, 201, and entered the E-state apartment before being served with the provisional disposition prohibiting the obstruction of possession. Therefore, there was no intention to intrude the structure.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, on February 17, 2014, with respect to the Defendant’s entry into a mixed apartment as the exercise of lien, the fact that the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on February 24, 2015 due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) at the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office on Punishment of Violences, etc. on February 24, 2015, G as the wife of D filed an application for provisional disposition of prohibition of disturbance against possession against the Defendant, etc. with the Daejeon District Court on April 8, 2015, and on April 10, 2015, it can be recognized that the Defendant was served on

Although the defendant was served a written decision of provisional disposition prohibiting possession after the crime of this case

Even if the defendant was served with a provisional disposition for the prohibition of interference with possession after being suspended from indictment as above, there was no negligence on the part of the defendant's entry into the E-state apartment against the victim's will without legitimate authority.