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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) had approximately KRW 551 square meters of land owned by the victim D in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-si; and (b) had only one biter with a container owned by E without permission; and (c) prevented the Defendant from using land owned by the victim equivalent to approximately KRW 3,828,00 of the officially announced land price; and (d) maintained its utility by preventing the use of land owned by the victim.

2. On March 2013, the Defendant: (a) laid off a victim D’s land in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-si, which was owned by the Plaintiff, on a size of approximately KRW 6.6 square meters; and (b) laid off a sand position panel, which is a construction material, without permission, and prevented the Defendant from using the land owned by the victim amounting to approximately KRW 798,600 in the publicly announced market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A certified copy of the cadastral map and land cadastre;

1. With respect to paragraph 1 of the holding, each of the Defendant’s images of a field photograph shall have a bitr directly.

However, according to the records of this case, it is argued that there was no fact that Trrrler and owner of this case requested E to move Trrrler several times to another place. The defendant's assertion in this part is not acceptable since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant brought Trrler to the land owned by the victim, considering the following circumstances: the defendant's moving of Trr and the relation between the defendant, victim, and E, etc. is recognized, the fact that the defendant brought Trrler to the land owned by the victim, and the defendant's moving of Trr is sufficiently recognized. The defendant's assertion in this part is not accepted.

In addition, the defendant argues to the effect that the punishment was already imposed by Suwon District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 978 in relation to the decision 2, so it constitutes double punishment.