재물손괴
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the owner of Haban-gun C, Haban-gun, and the victim D is the owner of E.
On June 22, 2017, around 09:00, the Defendant: (a) dumped part of the fences installed over the land owned by the victim D; (b) the road owned by F; (c) the land owned by the Defendant in C; and (d) the fence owned by the Defendant in C.
As a result, the defendant damaged the victim's property to receive approximately 4 million won.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each police statement made to D, G, and H;
1. A certified copy of each real estate registry;
1. Application of each statute on 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. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
1. Since the alleged fence was owned by the defendant, it is not another person's property, but the defendant did not have intention to damage property.
2. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the court’s evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, ① ownership transfer registration was completed on April 10, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s death, J sold E land to D on the same day, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 14, 2014, on March 3, 2014, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the inheritance due to consultation division; ② ownership transfer registration on the instant land and the roof-based detached house 46.92 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”); ② ownership of the instant housing should be deemed land owned by JJ in order from the said land (hereinafter “the instant housing”) pursuant to Article 239 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was also a fence surrounding the instant housing.