If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

At around 18:00 on April 30, 2012, the Defendant, on the ground that CCTV construction is extended to the “E driving school” located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, Songpa-gu, Seoul, caused human parts to cut down the locks, which are locking devices, and enter into the private teaching institute, thereby damaging the locks that are owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of suspect with regard to F;

1. G Fact-finding certificates;

1. Judgment on the assertion of photographic defendant and defense counsel [Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the point of causing damage to joint property];

1. The argument that the Defendant ordered the other party who had been engaged in CCTV extension construction on April 30, 2012 to cut locks is a justifiable act that may be acceptable in light of social ethics or social norms. However, the illegality is excluded.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, i.e., ① the Defendant was aware of the victim’s contact address, and thus, it appears that the Defendant could have been able to carry out construction with the victim’s cooperation (it cannot be justified merely because the Defendant’s act of ordering the Plaintiff to cut locks without the victim’s consent was somewhat delayed because the Corporation was not in currency with the victim). ② The lease agreement states, “The lessor or his employee may enter the lessor or his employee to show the location of the leased prior to the completion of the contract, and the lessee shall actively cooperate (Article 21), but it cannot be deemed that the meaning of the above provision without permission is included in the case of destroying the locks and entering the leased site, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of damaging the Defendant is reasonable means and method, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act, and the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is acceptable.