Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Criminal facts

The defendant is the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B apartment 101, 702, and the victim C is the person who leased and resided the above apartment.

1. On or around August 9, 2014, the Defendant was provided with a password from the victim, stating that the Defendant thought that the above apartment construction was carried out, but the victim did not permit the construction. However, the victim was provided with a password by stating to the effect that “the lessee who entered a new apartment to show his house, changed his house, and changed to notify him of his identification number.”

Around that time, the Defendant opened a door door and opened the inner construction using the above password in the apartment.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

2. On August 13, 2014, the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that “A victim was aware of the act of the Defendant as described in paragraph (1) and changed the present door password,” and that “A victim’s head of the victim’s mother knew of the act of the Defendant as described in paragraph (1), the Defendant provided the changed password.”

Around that time, the Defendant opened a door door and opened the inner construction using the above password in the apartment.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation, lease contract, field photograph and letter of payment;

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

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant, after committing the crime of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as stated in the judgment of the court below, promises the victim to compensate for damages after recognizing his mistake and promising the victim to commit the crime of Article 2 of the judgment in the same manner, the defendant is consistent with his defense rather than pening his mistake, and the victim wants to punish the defendant.