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

The defendant is the head of the field management planning team and the head of the public relations planning team in the construction site of the "D convalescent Hospital" in the net city C, and the F is the management director of the "G" which is the contractor of the construction site, and H is the site manager of the construction site.

On the other hand, the victim I had installed containers at the entrance of the construction site and claimed the lien, but on November 5, 2014, notified the Gwangju District Court's order of provisional disposition prohibiting interference with construction.

During that period, the Defendant removed electric cables owned by the victim connected to F and H and the container and conspired to move containers to another place.

around 18:00 on May 4, 2015, the Defendant called “F to cut off electric cables connected to a container that enables the construction to proceed with the construction,” and “F” to H, “I, by cutting electricity engineers and cutting off electric tables in container stuffs, thereby leaving them to another course.”

“Along with the foregoing circumstances, H instructed an electrical engineer J to “a request the electrical cable connected to a container to be laid off” and did not know of such circumstances.

J cut off electric cables 150 meters connected to containers.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with F and H, destroyed the electric cables of 1.2 million won in the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Part of the defendant's legal statements;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against H and F;

1. Police statements made to I and J;

1. On-site photographs, estimates, certificates of fact, and container photographs (the defendant and his/her defense counsel had no intention to damage goods);

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the fact that the lien dispute had continued to exist at the construction site of this case, the above container was installed at the construction site during the lien dispute, and the defendant was an on-site warden for the purpose of taking a photograph as an on-site warden.