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

On July 2012, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property by writing the victim’s D-owned building located in Gangnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the lower court, on the 1st to the 3rd floor of the above building, such as stairs walls, entrance doors, and chlographing on the glass windows, and then destroying the victim’s property so that the repair cost equivalent to KRW 810,000 at the market price is difficult to understand the meaning.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that “the Defendant added a building to a paint” made by this court

1. Statement of witness F;

1. Photographs of destroying and damaging property;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the defendant in a written estimate is that "E" is written in a victim's building, and there is only a fact that he/she added to his/her refusal to see it in appearance, and there is no fact that he/she omitted as stated in the facts charged.

According to the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s statement, the witness F, and D’s testimony, each testimony, and each property damage and damage (investigation record 7-11); (b) the underground and the 4th floor in which the Defendant was living at the time of the instant case; and (c) the 1, 2, and 3th floor of the building, except for the 4th floor in which the Defendant was living; (d) however, the scambling was carried out in the color page as indicated in the facts charged; (b) the stairs of the building had fallen; (c) however, the Defendant’s name “A” was added to the part in which the Defendant was living at the time of the instant case, and (d) the fact that the scambling in the name of “A” was carried out by the Defendant, but it can be identified that the name was put in place.

In the above-mentioned facts, it seems that the name of the defendant and the paint attached by the defendant, all of which are listed in the building, appears to have the same quality as the result of the inspection. The defendant's defense that the defendant's non-permission of the lessor was not fluored for the reason that the defendant did not refuse to do so, and the third party's name knew of the defendant's name, and it is very exceptional that the defendant's name was omitted.