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

On December 21, 2017, around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) opened a gate that was not corrected in order to perform the removal work of the victim’s house; and (b) entered the gate to receive wages that was not partially received; (c) but did not comply with the victim’s request for withdrawal from the 19:10 minutes and 10 minutes of the 19:10 minutes of the 19th day, even though the Defendant received demand from the injured party to move out of the gate, the Defendant refused the victim’s request for withdrawal without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning suspect interrogation protocol concerning D;

1. Article 319 (2) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 319 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act that choose a penalty;

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

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

1. The gist of the argument is that the victim does not request the defendant to leave.

2. The victim, as the first investigative agency and the first investigative agency consistent from this court to the present court, demanded the Defendant to leave the scene by avoiding disturbance, such as entering his house and her string a large amount of sound, etc.

was stated.

The above victim's statement is consistent, the contents of the statement are specific and clear, and even if it is sufficiently reliable in light of the attitude of the statement in this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant at the time did not comply with the demand from the injured party for the eviction.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant without permission enter the victim's residence.

Since the disturbance violated the peace of residence guaranteed by the Constitution by refusing to comply with the demand for eviction from the damaged person, the case is not less complicated.

Even though the Defendant did not fully deny the crime, the Defendant did not object to the truth.

Provided, That the defendant shall be injured by himself at the time.