Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

(2017 Highly 918) On November 23, 2016, the Defendant, installed on the C Office's outer wall located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan around 13:00, destroyed the CCTV protection glass of the victim D so that the repair cost can be destroyed by breaking it over several times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing evidence 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. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (2017 High Court Decision 917) of the Provisional Payment Order;

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person running C in Busan Dong-gu B.

On August 23, 2016, 2016, F issued a notice to the effect that the land price before the possession of real estate in Busan District Court 2016Kao, 52453, which was delegated by creditors D, is used by the original disposal decision, on the wall of the above parking lot office on the condition that “it shall be used by the debtor on the condition that it does not change the present state according to the original intent,” and that the debtor shall not occupy the above real estate or transfer its name.”

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from August 23, 2016 to December 1, 2016, arbitrarily removed the above notice, which is attached to the above parking lot office, from around December 23, 2016, thereby impairing its utility.

2. In light of the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 4 of the evidence submitted by the Defendant, each legal statement of the witness G and F, which was attached to the public notice written in the facts charged, through the window of the above parking lot office, is difficult to believe this as it is. The remaining evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, and thus, it is not guilty by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.