Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On July 19, 201, around 08:30 on July 19, 201, the Defendant removed the entrance locking device by extracting out the door lap, and applied into the structures managed by E for the purpose of acquiring the right of retention, for the purpose of 602 F building owned by the victim E in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

B. The Defendant, at the above date, destroyed the installation cost of KRW 40,00,00 by removing the lock locking system for the entrance door owned by the victim E at the above time and place.

2. Defendant B

A. On July 19, 201, around 08:30 on July 19, 201, the Defendant removed the entrance locking device and intruded into the structures managed by E for the purpose of acquiring the right of retention for the F building 111 owned by the victim E in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

B. The Defendant, at the above date, destroyed the installation cost of KRW 50,00,00 by removing the lock locking system for the entrance door owned by the victim E at the above time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning E;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect against the Defendants

1. Statement of each police statement concerning E and G;

1. A complaint, a certified copy of the register, an apartment contract, and a record of civil execution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (a document terminating special agreements);

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for negligence

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

1. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act and their defense counsel

1. The Defendants asserted that, while exercising the right of retention on the structure as indicated in the judgment in order to secure the claim for construction cost, the victim committed an act as stated in the judgment in order to protect the key by arbitrarily changing the key, so the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2...