Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 18, 2014, at around 13:00, the Defendant arbitrarily changed the interior of D Co., Ltd.’s office E managed by the directors of D Co., Ltd. of the victim D Co., Ltd. on the 6th floor of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon building C, Daejeon, by allowing the Defendant to enter the entrance of the above office, without knowing the fact that the Defendant was not a legitimate right holder, to arbitrarily intrude into the above office, and then arbitrarily intruded into the above office, and in the process, four digital fingers (victim’s assertion) in total amounting to KRW 800,000 (victim’s assertion) and four doors in total amounting to KRW 2 million (victim’s assertion) at the market price managed by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigation report (a written estimate, field photograph, etc.);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 366, 34(1), 31(1) (the selection of property damage and fine) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, and Articles 319(1), 34(1), and 31(1) (the occupation of intrusion and the selection of fine) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

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

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

1. The Defendant asserted that D Co., Ltd. entered the sixth floor office (hereinafter “instant office”) of the Daejeon Sung-gu Daejeon District Office with the consent of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant office”). As such, the crime of intrusion into room and the crime of damage to property is not established.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the Defendant leased the instant office to D Co., Ltd., and refused to leave the office on the ground that D Co., Ltd failed to receive all of the deposit for lease even after the lease contract was terminated, and the Defendant demanded to leave D Co., Ltd. to the State prior to the occurrence of the instant case, but D Co., Ltd is removed when the problem of deposit for lease is resolved