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

The Defendant is the owner of a cemetery-related facility (a charnel) that has not yet been completed by Jeonyang-gun C, and the victim D (manam, 56 years of age, and death on January 1, 2015) installed CCTV in the above building around 2012 as a person who is exercising a lien on the above building.

On September 2014, the Defendant newly installed CCTV facilities at the above location, which caused the victim to be unable to operate by extracting CCTV lines installed as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of suspect of the police accused;

1. Statement of the police about D;

1. In full view of other evidence, it appears that the victim's Internet circuit line was extracted from the previous CCTV installed and connected to the defendant's line. Accordingly, the defendant's argument on this part is not acceptable, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the indictment (Evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, and 20 of the list of evidence), written applications (Evidence No. 2, 6, 12, 16, and 20 of the list of evidence) [the defendant is asserting that he did not extract or instruct the Internet line. However, the defendant has already recognized that he had already installed a new Internet line at the police investigation stage, and there is no other evidence that the defendant installed a separate Internet line while installing a new CCTV.

1. Relevant Articles 366 (Selection of Punishment of Fines)

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act or above;