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

On July 10, 2014, the Defendant purchased from F the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E site (hereinafter “instant site”) and destroyed the sn beam of approximately KRW 3.5 million at the market price of the victim G owned by the Defendant, which was installed in the course of the construction of Bara Construction on the said site (hereinafter “sn beam of the instant site”), by requiring each H to remove and remove it around October 26, 2014 and around November 2, 201 of the same year.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and I;

1. Each police statement made to J and H;

1. The K's statement;

1. Details of output of the goods at auction;

1. A detailed statement;

1. A copy of the steel lease agreement and a copy of the confirmation document;

1. A copy of a lien report, a copy of bid protocol, and a written decision on permission for sale;

1. A copy of a trading contract;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Submission of photographs of victims);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The sloping beamline of the instant case is included in the sales contract on the instant site and its ground structures concluded between F and I, the husband of F, and the Defendant, and is not included in the subject of domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant acquired ownership in accordance with the principle of good faith or acquisition, it cannot be deemed as another person's property. ② The sn beamline of this case cannot be deemed as an object of damage because it has no economic utility value as a waste material.

If the sloping beamline of this case is owned by another person, the defendant did not know that it belongs to the ownership of another person, or did not anticipate the occurrence of the result of infringement of utility, and thus there was no intention to damage the property.