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

On August 23, 2017, from around 15:26 to 15:48 of the same day, the Defendant parked in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and its own residential loan parking lot without mentioning the victim D ( South, 27 years old) telephone numbers. However, the Defendant written the letters in front of the victim’s Erobeer vehicle volume with “blocker,” and damaged the property worth KRW 5,073,498 in the estimate of the repair cost of the vehicle by spreading blick in the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with D (including a estimate, photograph, etc. of the maintenance of the motor vehicle inspection);

1. Written petition for DNA preparation;

1. A report on investigation (related to statements by a victim);

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the investigation report (the confirmation of the victim’s vehicle) (the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant written letters on the victim’s vehicle using the black raft, but did not prove any amount equivalent to the repair cost indicated in the facts charged, and was punished for the damage of property.

The crime of homicideing and damaging property is established when exercising tangible power over all or part of the property owned by another by recognizing that it infringes on its utility in whole or in part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do1592, Jan. 31, 1989) and destroying or reducing its utility in accordance with its original purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do1592, Jan. 31, 1989). While the Defendant’s writing on a victim’s vehicle in a black cream, he could not use the vehicle for its original purpose while the writing is written, he could not use it for its original purpose.

Even if it is difficult to say that the previous and previous conditions are identical due to minor damage, etc. in the process of deletion, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of damage to property.

The repair cost indicated in the facts charged of this case is equivalent to the actual repair cost indicated in the facts charged by the defendant.