Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On November 24, 2014, around 15:30 on November 24, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily opened one counter-folded door, conference room entrance, and office entrance, respectively, at the EE office for the management of the victim D in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon-si, in order to conduct counter-survey research and development projects jointly with the victim, and when the project has been completed without any outcome, the Defendant left it.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property equivalent to approximately KRW 300,000,000 owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Part concerning D statements concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the police against the defendant

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Side photographs to be attached with a warning;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's investigation report (the defendant F and telephone conversations accompanied by the suspect A) and defense counsel are not guilty, since the defendant removed the intelligence with the consent of the victim.

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the victim said that the victim will remove the counter-rupture by replacing another counter-rupture to the defendant who will remove the counter-rupture, and the victim merely expressed his/her intention not to replace another counter-rupture to the defendant who is at risk of removing the counter-rupture, and the victim also expressed his/her intention not to dupture the counter-rupture to the defendant (According to the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, when the defendant actually removes the counter-rupture

In fact, the Defendant stated that he was “I know,” and the victim “I wish to do so by law.”

In light of the fact that “the Defendant was aware of whether the inside is removed,” the Defendant was aware of the fact that “the victim was removed,” and in light of this, the Defendant consented that the victim was removed from the Defendant without the replacement of the counter.

It is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s assertion that he removed a intelligence with the consent of the victim.