When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On September 12, 2017, around 13:30 on September 13:30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) caused concrete fences newly built by the victim D to the extent that the Defendant violated the Defendant’s land; and (b) destroyed the above fence by cutting off the wall with a view to destroying the market value.

[Recognizing the fact that a wall was destroyed by a defendant, the defendant is dissatisfied with the repair cost.

With regard to this, the victim stated that "the defendant damaged the wall by dump and did not accept it until now, he received a written estimate that the repair cost will be equivalent to KRW 2.190,000, and the written estimate will be later submitted."

Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned estimate that the above-mentioned estimate was not submitted as evidence to this court, and considering the body pictures and photographs showing the degree of damage of the above wall, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was damaged by the defendant to cover 2.190,000 won as stated in the indictment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged as stated in the facts constituting a crime, is revised to “affore the market price to be repaired.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on investigation (on-site verification, etc. of arguments);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs on wall destruction;

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. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) the fact relevance itself is recognized and reflects the fact; and (b) the fact that a dispute arises between the victim and the victim over whether the fenced wall intrudes with the land, which would lead to the instant crime by contingency; (c) there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime; and (d) there are no records of criminal punishment exceeding the fine during the dispute.