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

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

Criminal facts

On December 11, 2016, the Defendant opened the locks owned by the victim C at the 20-story E heading office of the building D, which is managed by the victim C located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, 2016, and entered the said office by using hacksaws and hacks.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the locks and infringed on the above office at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of CCTV video recording);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (with respect to the perusal of registers of 19 floors and 20 floors buildings);

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant was entitled to possess the office of this case, and thus, the crime of intrusion on the structure is not established.

2. The crime of intrusion upon a residence is a de facto legal interest to protect the peace of the dwelling. Whether the dwelling person or the guard has the right to reside in the building, etc. does not depend on the establishment of the crime, and even if the occupation of the person without the right to possess is the possession of the building, the peace of the dwelling should be protected. Thus, in a case where the right holder intrudes on the building without following the procedure prescribed by the Act in exercising his right, the crime of intrusion upon the residence is established (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1760, Nov. 10, 1987, etc.). Even if the defendant alleged in the defendant, there is a circumstance that the defendant was delegated to possess the office of this case at the time of the instant case.

Even if the fact of the office of this case has been transferred to the damaged person, the locks shall be destroyed without permission and the office of this case shall be entered.