If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

At around 11:40 on December 27, 2016, the Defendant found the above lending in order to visit D, which had been living there, but the card key was not possible to enter into the card, and the Defendant removed the personal phone owned by the victim E in an area amounting to KRW 250,000 at the left side of the entrance of the entrance of the building and damaged it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A E-document;

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that it does not constitute a crime of property damage since the defendant's personal phone (hereinafter "the building of this case") is owned by the defendant, since the arrest report of the occurrence of the case, investigation report, photo, etc. of the scene of damage, personal phone estimate, investigation report (the attachment of the relevant real estate register), investigation report (the victim E-mail hearing), and investigation report (the defendant's personal phone) [the defendant damaged the personal phone (hereinafter "personal phone of this case"), as stated in the facts charged.

However, according to each of the above evidence, the building of this case is owned by F, not only by the defendant but also by F, and since the personal phone installed in the building of this case is recognized as the victim's child, the above assertion by the defendant is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. Taking into account the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) appears to have led to the instant crime by gathering in the past due to difficult circumstances, the amount of damage is relatively small, and the elderly’s health is not good