Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violating the defensive justice at the Daejeon District Court on April 24, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 8, 2015, and on May 27, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement in the same court on December 8, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant is the owner of a multi-family house in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, and the victim D was a person who, from May 2010 to May 201, lent the above house 202 to the administrator of the above apartment E as the refund of the lease deposit, has exercised the right of retention by using KRW 5 million and KRW 1.5 million as the preserved bond.

On April 201, the Defendant: (a) removed an entrance locking device installed by the victim on 202 and replaced a locking device; (b) prevented the victim from entering the said 202.

Accordingly, the defendant was prevented from exercising his rights by taking possession of the above house owned by the defendant, which was the object of the victim's rights.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Each protocol of examination of witness (No. 4 and 5 No. 5);

1. Evidence photographs;

1. Previous records: Application of statutes to each judgment and search output of each case;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts and Article 323 of the Criminal Act that choose a penalty;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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 defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant removed and replaced the locking device installed by the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. However, the defendant did not know at all that the victim paid the lease deposit under 202, or that the victim performed a double construction work under 202 upon request of F and E, the victim claimed a separate agreed deposit claim and exercised a lien.