Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A As the actual representative of “B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”)”, the four and 64 households of Gyeongdong-gun D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong (hereinafter “B”) were newly built on September 9, 2016 as a construction contract and completed on or around August 2017, but was not paid part of the construction price, and the F-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong-dong D-dong D-dong-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-dong D-si seeking compulsory auction on or around

1) On May 2019, the Defendant: (a) on the premise that he/she was in possession of the victim C (n, 61 years of age) who was in the Gyeongbuk-gun M, the Defendant infringed upon the victim’s structure by having the N of the On-Site Director B, who was under his/her business instruction, enter the said site and living there; (b) on August 2019, the Defendant thought that he/she would possess the said “D building” room; and (c) had the real estate business operator, who was his/her own land, enter the said room and live there; and (d) infringed the victim’s structure.

3. On August 2019, the Defendant: (a) had B-in-house director P, who was ordered to take possession of the said D-building J room, enter the said room and had him/her live, thereby infringing on the victim’s structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement of the witness C as to P’s legal statement, investigation report (on-site confirmation of the exercise of the right of retention), the defendant of the ruling of recommending reconciliation, and the defense counsel asserted that the possession of the household as indicated in the ruling was obtained by C’s prior consent or consent, which is the owner of the building, and the defendant did not have any intention to intrude into the building. However, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, C, the defendant, the representative of B, consistently sell the building E-dong from the investigative agency to this court.