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

On April 25, 2014, the defendant was a director of the LAB, and the company purchased land of approximately 370 square meters in Kimhae-si C, D on April 25, 201, and sold the land to E on January 22, 2016.

On February 6, 2015, the victim F entered into a contract with the LAF to set up a H hotel in the land at KRW 15 billion, which was the representative director of the GAF, and began the basic construction work, such as making a slope land smooth after installing a pent in the surrounding area of the land.

However, the LAB sold the instant land to E and notified the victims of the suspension of construction as above.

G The right of retention was claimed and occupied the land on the ground that the G M&A did not receive the construction cost.

As above, when a land purchaser becomes subject to a claim from E due to the lack of delivery, the Defendant destroyed a steel fence in an amount equivalent to KRW 30 million installed by the victim in the vicinity of the land in Kimhae-si on January 22, 2017, and damaged another person’s property by using a pentle gate in an amount equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (the confirmation of the owner of this pentle), an investigation report (the attachment of the data relating to the case submitted by the victim F), an investigation report (the attachment of any seed non-cinematographic attachment) (the attachment of any c

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment is that the victim’s responsibility to commit the instant crime, which has removed the victim’s steel gate in order to secure the financial resources for the possession of the land possessed by the person claiming the right of retention.

No agreement was reached with the victim on the removal of the instant steel mills.

However, with respect to the payment and lien of the construction cost which caused the instant dispute, the dispute with the victim was resolved smoothly.

The Defendant committed the instant crime.