If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

On August 2019, the Defendant, who is engaged in the construction business of building outer walls, received a subcontract from the building business operator B and received a subcontract from the victim D's house building business operator B and conducted a construction work of outer walls in the building site owned by the victim D's house in Pyeongtaek-gun C.

After that, on September 3, 2019, the Defendant called “I will go to the office because I have to repair any defect in the house,” and the victim called “I will go to the office because I have already received the documents for completion of the construction in the Gun office.” The victim called “I have to confirm what problem has been done by consulting with the construction business operator and enter the Gun office to reduce the phone.”

Nevertheless, at around 14:00 on the same day, the Defendant entered the above house owned by the victim, and dusted as soon as possible the outer wall part of the entrance and exit constructed by the Defendant in the form of “.”

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's outer wall to be restored to its original state amounting to KRW 200,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion on the occurrence report (such as intrusion upon residence), internal investigation report (Attachment to photographs), and internal investigation report (the telephone conversation B)

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that "the defendant spreads Racar to indicate that there is a need for further repair due to defects, and there was no criminal intent to destroy outer walls."

2. In recognition of the criminal intent of destroying and damaging property, it does not necessarily require planned damage or actively wish to damage the property, and there is sufficient awareness about the loss of utility of the property against the owner's will. Here, "conscising the utility of the property" means not only making it impossible to use it for the original purpose of use of the property but also making it impossible to use it temporarily.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on December 7, 1993