A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

around 09:40 on May 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) at the victim C’s house located in Yangju-si, Yangju-si, the Defendant transferred the ownership of the said house to the victim through auction; and (b) even though the said house, which the Defendant had previously lived in the said house, the victim was living in the said house at present, the Defendant was able to open the door of the said house in front of the entrance, and (c) the Defendant called “Saman-do.” The said house was called as the house of the Defendant; (d) the victim claimed that the said house was the house of the Defendant; and (e) the victim returned to the large interest and math.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

around 08:58 on November 1, 2018, the Defendant found the victim C’s house located in Yangju-si B to be a house owned by the Defendant before the lapse of auction due to debts around 2015, and infringed upon the victim’s residence over 10 times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, on the ground that the Defendant was a house owned by the Defendant due to debts around 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Copy of resident registration certificates;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certified copy of register;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

1. Article 62(1)(C) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (The following favorable circumstances) of the Criminal Act asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant case, but it is recognized that the defendant lost his house by auction and received considerable mental impulses, but it is difficult to view that the defendant was in a state that he lacks the ability to discern the object at the time of the instant case or make decisions, in light of the defendant's behavior attitude, treatment experience, treatment contents, etc., and it is difficult to view that the defendant was in a state that he or she lacks the ability to discern the object at the time of the instant case, the above assertion is rejected.