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

On May 26, 2018, the Defendant destroyed the property equivalent to KRW 1,144,00 by removing the above banner on the ground that the Defendant’s removal of the banner posted by the victim C with the content that it would interfere with the sale of this land at the site of the construction of the housing unit for sale in Gyeonggi-gu B, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and that it would interfere with the sale of this land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of D and C;

1. Photographs of the damaged property;

1. A investigation report (investigation into submission of a written estimate for damage) and written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (investigation into the submission of photographs verifying damage details), and photographs to Chapter ¥· of Round cards;

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment [the prosecutor, at the time of the instant crime, prosecuted a special damage (Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act) on the ground that the instant crime constituted a case where the instant crime was committed by carrying a "hazardous article" and carrying a banner, on the ground that the Defendant removed the banner well by improvement at the time of the instant crime.

However, even if a dangerous object, such as improvement, is merely used in accordance with the use of the object, and is not used as part of the act of causing danger and injury to the other party or a third party, or as part of the act of causing danger and danger to the property, it cannot be deemed as constituting “hazardous object” under Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act, unless it is used as part of the act of causing danger and danger to the property.

In the case of this proposal, the improvement has been used so as to cause harm to others by cutting the strings of banners or by using it as part of dangerous and brupt destruction.

It is difficult to see it.

On the other hand, the charged facts of this case include property damage (Article 366 of the Criminal Code) and application of it is not likely to cause a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense.

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

1. The Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order.