Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendants, who were in charge of the construction of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Down on October 29, 2012, opened the entrance of the above Down on the grounds that the Defendants failed to fully pay the construction cost from E, the owner of the above Down, and entered into the entrance, and Defendant B occupied the above 503 and 504, and Defendant A infringed upon the structures managed by the International Trust & Security Company.

2. The gist of the Defendants asserted that, as the construction business operator of the Dogra (the next Dogra in this case) was not paid the construction cost, the complainant continued to possess the Dogra 503 and 504 and 404 prior to the acquisition of ownership as the lien holder, the complainant did not have commenced management and thus, it does not constitute a case of intrusion upon the structure managed by others.

3. Determination

A. As evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, the F’s investigative agency and court statements are made.

F confirmed, around October 15, 2013, that at an investigative agency and a court, the G Credit Union, E, the owner of the instant loan from the G Credit Union, E, the owner of the instant loan, was holding a right to retention on the instant building, and around October 15, 2013, the G Credit Union confirmed the exterior of the building, and the inside of the building was confirmed by the employees of other credit unions, and there was no talking that the goods were loaded in the said inside the said inside of the building, or that the said inside of the building was occupied by any group. Around January 2013, there was no knowledge that the said numberk was set at any time before October 29, 2012.