The Defendant is a person who leased and resided with the victim C from November 24, 201 to November 23, 2015, the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102 Dong-dong 1202 Dong-gu 1202.

On November 26, 2015, around 17:00, the Defendant damaged the property of the victim by making it difficult to know the market price installed in the front door on the ground that the victim did not refund 100 million won deposit to the front door of the apartment site on November 26, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to C by the police in the protocol; and

1. Statement of a criminal investigation report (to hear statements of the complainant C);

1. Application of each of the video Acts and subordinate statutes in a copy of photographic data and photograph;

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

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for conviction under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence, and the defense counsel, as long as the sound place of escape appears to belong to the defendant, the defendant left it in turn;

Even if it is difficult to see that it falls under the damage of property, and the fact that he/she brought a scam and internal cases to the extent that it makes it impossible to operate the scam.

It is difficult to see that it does not reach the degree to harm the utility of fishing village.

The charges are denied by asserting that they are facts charged.

However, according to its assertion, even if the defendant's replacement of the healthy land of Doms during the lease period is the ownership of the defendant, the objects of the damage of the property in the facts charged in this case are deemed to have been specified as Doms, and whether the defendant's sound land is not.

(1) An act between them shall take place with a coverer and inside cases.

Since it seems that the act of damage to property was expressed in the form of the act of damage along with the act between them, it is the sole fact that the sound price of Dozine is the ownership of the defendant.