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

On June 6, 2016, around 16:50, the Defendant brought a dispute with the victim D as wage problem in the petition-gu C, the building construction site, and then ended with the victim D and the other party wall inside and outside of the building. On June 6, 2016, the Defendant damaged a red brick equivalent to approximately KRW 660,000 owned by the said victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statements made in court by witnesses D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on damage to property, a report on damage, a report on investigation (related to attaching photographs of damage), and a written estimate;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 366 (Selection of Penalty Penalty)

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the confinement of the workhouse, the Defendant and the defense counsel, and the victim, who have dried up the brick.

The reason is that the crime of property damage is not established because there has been an implied agreement by filing a complaint and securing incidental documents.

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and even if based on the defendant's statement, the issue of construction cost is discussed as the issue of the victim's wrong storage of bricks.

I pointed out that the defendant will bring the defendant to incidental to the victim.

말하면서 해머로 부쉈다는 것인데, 피해자에게 동의를 받은 것은 아닌 점, 피고인은 피해자가 말리지 않아서 묵인한 것이라 하지만 피해자는 해머를 휘두르는 피고인이 겁이 나 말릴 수 없었다고

If a statement is made, it cannot be seen that the report was made immediately on the spot, and it is difficult to see that there was an agreement with the victim on the addition and re-construction of the wall he he stockpiled, and that the defendant did not engage in any act to re-stack the wall after the order, and that the defendant has damaged the wall that he has not accumulated.