On October 13, 2015, the Defendant, at around 22:30 on the “F” door to the “F” door to the “F” door of the victim’s operation located in Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, called the victim to know the password of the digital locking device, and called the victim, but refused it and did not carry the Defendant’s goods remaining inside the entrance, thereby making it difficult to know the length of the digital locking device gaps installed at the entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property equivalent to KRW 70,000 owned by the victim.

2. Determination

A. The digital locking device (hereinafter “digital locking device of this case”) in which the Defendant’s assertion by the defense counsel and the Defendant’s defense counsel infringed is the property owned by the Defendant.

B. 1) The evidence revealed that the digital locking device of this case is owned C is the police statement of C.

C 120,000 won and attached the digital locking device of this case

was stated.

2) However, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the Defendant’s partial legal statement, witness G’s legal statement, damaged photo, investigation report (on-site photographs and CCTV data), each lease agreement, account transaction details (agricultural Cooperatives), and the warden.

On February 8, 2010, the Defendant leased the second floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that was moved from the Daejeon Agricultural Cooperative to H in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon at KRW 15,00,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 1,500,000,000.

G, the Defendant-friendly interest key to G, around 2010, installed a digital locking device on the instant real estate, and the external appearance of the digital lock device installed by G is the same as the digital lock device of this case.

On October 18, 2012, the Defendant changed the above lease contract to KRW 1,00,000 per month.

The Defendant partitioned the instant real estate and operated the Taekwondo head and the indoor axis.