If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

1. On October 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed two banners equivalent to KRW 90,00 in total at the market price set up by the injured Party C on the front of Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the right side of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office.

2. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant destroyed two placards equivalent to KRW 90,00,00 in total, at the same place as around 10:18, and in the same manner, at the market price owned by the victim C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. The charge is denied to the effect that each banner photograph and recovered damaged photograph [the Defendant does not harm the instant banner itself as property, but did an act identical to the facts charged in order to prevent the infringement of honor and credit against the Defendant’s work for the construction of a committee for the settlement of disputes.

The crime of destruction of property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when a special media record, such as another person’s property, document, or electronic record, is destroyed or concealed, or has impaired its utility by any other means. Here, where the utility is impaired by any damage or concealment or other means, it includes not only cases where goods, etc. are changed into a state in which it cannot be used for its original purpose, but also cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for its original purpose temporarily as a material destruction act (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016, etc.). In a case where the instant banner, which includes the contents of the provision against the defendant, is removed from the original place and stored in a separate place, the victim of one person’s demonstration, at a very urgent depth, is unable to widely notify the defendant’s side and the general public of the contents on the banner, and thus, it becomes clear that its utility would be reduced temporarily or temporarily. In addition, the defendant removed the banner in this case and removed it at the place of third.