On January 7, 2019, around 15:00, the Defendant removed two banners (the content that this building was recognized as a lien in a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the lien) equivalent to the total market value of the building attached by the victim in question, from the pet building where the victim D, in Chungcheongnam-si B, and C exercises the right of retention.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. On-site photographs, placards photographs (the result of the relevant civil lawsuit, the defendant's right to claim delivery of the land, but the victim has a right to retention in respect of the building. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of destroying the banner of the victim, stating "the victim has a right to retention in respect of the building" constitutes a legitimate act or that it is not illegal. It is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the damage of property and the illegality of such act because he/she was aware of the result

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (amount of money to be converted to a kindergarten: 100,000 won per day);

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (including circumstances of crime and the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant);