On December 21, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for special larceny, etc. in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on December 21, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence on November 17, 2018.

1. 폭행 피고인은 2019. 4. 5. 00:20경 구미시 H에 있는 ‘I’ 앞 골목길에서, 별다른 이유 없이 그곳에 서 있는 피해자 J(57세)에게 “도둑놈아”라고 말하며 오른발로 피해자의 낭심 부위를 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

2. On April 13, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 17:50 on April 13, 2019, the Defendant: (b) was the head of Ma School, the residence of the victim L (60 years of age) located in Gyeongcheon-si, Kimcheon-si; (c) was damaged by breaking the fence, which is an object dangerous to the glass of the inner windows, and went back to the inner bank after breaking the fence; and (d) was invaded by the inner bank; and (d) was 2 punishment on two uniforms and 3 punishment on which the market price with the clothes cannot be ascertained; and

Accordingly, the Defendant initially stated this part of the instant indictment as “M school”, and the victim changed the victim into “L” in the trial process according to the prosecutor’s written application for changes in indictment.

However, the legal interest in the crime of destroying and damaging property is not "the value of the ownership" or "the possessor's right to possess".

According to the records, the damage area of this case is a public elementary school under the jurisdiction of the Gyeongcheon-do Office of Education, which is used as a lodging place of the principal of the school in the form of a separate library, and M is a public elementary school under the jurisdiction of the Gyeongcheon-do Office of Education.

Therefore, the owner of the damaged glass is the Gyeongbuk-do.

The social factual relations, which are the basis, are basically identical, and the question and answer about who the owner of the above damaged article was made during the trial process, and the defendant and his defense counsel consented to the modification of the bill of indictment, so there is no concern that the exercise of the defendant's defense right may

Therefore, without changing the indictment, the indictment is ex officio.