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

The defendant is the owner C previously.

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 07:20, around 07:20, at a store owned by the victim D (son, 41 years of age) under the ground of the C Building in Busan Metropolitan City (69.03 square meters), unlike the design drawing, illegally extended a wall between the above warehouse and the parking lot; (b) on the ground that the building located within the warehouse was illegally extended due to the board, glass, etc., the Defendant damaged the aesthetic wall, the board, etc. in the market and damaged its utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made in the police statement protocol with D;

1. Entry in an investigation report (related to the registration of a victim and the submission of the building register);

1. Application of statutes on images of on-site photographs;

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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act guilty of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was a wall installed temporarily by the Defendant in around 1994 with a separate title, and thus, the Defendant still owned the Defendant, not in conformity with the building. Thus, it does not constitute property damage.

The argument is asserted.

In order for a movable to be recognized as belonging to a real estate, it shall be determined by taking into account whether the movable is attached and combined to the extent that it can not be separated without causing damage to or excessive expenses, and whether it can become an object of separate ownership in the transaction with independent economic utility from existing real estate in terms of its physical structure, use and function. The provisions of the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, which provides for the exception to attribution of ownership with respect to the attached property, provide that even if the attached property is attached to another person with the title, it shall not affect the rights of the attached person only if the attached property has an economic value.