A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of the third floor building in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and the victim D is a person who, on October 6, 2007, leased from the Defendant the part of the first floor store in the above building from the Defendant to October 30, 2007, the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and the lease period of the above building until October 30, 2008 and operated clothes in the above store until October 2013.

1. Around October 2013, the Defendant entering a building: (a) around 2013, after deducting the victim from the overdue rent, no deposit remains; and (b) the victim demanded the victim to order the sales to do so from around that time, the Defendant collected the premium; (c) removed the decoration, etc. installed inside the said store; (d) removed the decoration, etc. installed inside the said store to deliver the said store to the new lessee; and (e) opened the entrance of the said store at around 21:00 on November 30, 2013, and invaded the building managed by the victim.

2. The Defendant destroyed and damaged property by breaking away a decoration equivalent to 15 million won at the market price owned by the victim from the wall at the time and place stated in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant and defense counsel in the witness D's legal statement asserted that the defendant and defense counsel entered the store in this case with the victim's explicit implied consent and opened the funeral hall, so it does not constitute a crime.

According to the consistent statement of the witness D and the result of the fact-finding of this court, the victim is allowed to have telephone conversations with the defendant or to have telephone conversations with the defendant in order to resist the removal at the removal site after receiving contact from the main agent of E store that the removal was being carried out at the store of this case at the time of crime. The victim's behavior does not appear as the behavior of the person who consented to the removal.

On the other hand, according to the statements of the victim's investigative agency and this court, if the victim can continue to receive the premium, all other things.