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

The Defendant is referred to C, and C purchases from D around May 31, 2016 the area of 542 square meters, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and the victim F is a person who was created and managed the victim’s 3 bed on the north side of the said land from around 1994.

The Defendant and C consulted about the sale and purchase of the above land with the representative G of the victim’s family members around March 2017, but did not reach an agreement, and the Defendant did not reach an agreement.

8. The market value of the victim, who is the victim of the middle-class police, was at least KRW 500,000, damaged the victim’s turf 66 square meters in the vicinity of the cemetery bed, and damaged the victim’s turf’s 3,200,000 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. Each police statement made to H, F, and G;

1. Graveyard photographs (the defendant and his/her defense counsel shall not constitute a crime even if they are damaged by mistake that they have ownership of the victim's turf around the grave, and the son (C) of the defendant who is the landowner of the land;

I think that it was

The argument is asserted.

However, there is no obstacle to the establishment of a crime only on the site of such laws, and even if it constitutes a mistake in the law stipulated in Article 16 of the Criminal Code, there is a justifiable reason to mislead the defendant that he does not constitute a crime.

[No. 3]

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;