A and B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

Defendant

If A and B fail to pay the above fine, 100.

Defendant

A and B around July 10, 2014, when the victim G lending owned by the victim G in F of Incheon Spojin-gun, and when the right of retention was exercised, Defendant B, using the Draber, removed the 29 suspender portion and locking devices of the 29 suspending the sale of the victim to a third party, Defendant B supported the Defendant B by using the Draber. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20348, Jul. 10, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20354, Feb. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20354, Feb. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20354, Feb. 2, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20354, Feb. 2, 2006>

As a result, Defendant A and B jointly damaged the property owned by the victim to be equivalent to KRW 2,103,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B (as of the third trial date);

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. On-site photographs of damage to property;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); Article 366 of the Criminal Act; the selection of each fine

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, of the provisional payment order;

1. The summary of the facts charged was destroyed by Defendant C together with Defendant A and B in a manner such as the date and time of the above facts charged, and at the same time and place of the above facts charged, to ensure that the amount of property owned by the victim is equivalent to KRW 2,103,000.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014).