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

On March 22, 2018, the Defendant came to know of the fact that the Defendant could obtain permission to remove the ground structures attached with signboards (D, Eel, and Fel) installed on the said paddy field in preparation for permission, in order to construct a building by obtaining transfer of ownership from C holding a 64 square meters in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and that he could obtain permission to remove the above above-mentioned structures, while preparing for permission, and the owner of D and Felel signboards agreed to remove the above structures, but did not obtain consent from the victim G, the owner of the Eel, but did not arbitrarily remove the above structures with the above signboards.

At around 14:00 on August 10, 2018, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the ground structures attached with the “EMel” signboard installed on the ground of the Defendant’s return, Ulsan-gun B, Ulsan-gun, and thereby made the use of the above signboards by preventing the use of the signboards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da15488, Apr. 1, 2007) and defense counsel’s removal of the signboard and structure of this case with the consent of the victim, despite the victim’s request for removal of the signboard, etc., the victim’s consent would be deemed to have reached the crime of property damage, considering the circumstances leading to the crime of this case. The victim does not want to punish the defendant; the defendant has long been punished by larceny, etc., but there has been no previous conviction for not less than 15 years.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is as follows.