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

피고인은 2014. 6. 18. 01:03경 정읍시 C에 있는 ‘D’ 주점에서 위 주점에 들어가려고 하였으나 안에 불이 켜 있고 사람이 있음에도 문을 잠궜다는 이유로 피해자 E 소유의 위 주점 출입문을 손으로 잡아 흔들어 출입문이 비틀어지게 하여 시가 불상의 그 효용을 해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement of witness F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Written opinion (one copy of investigation record);

1. Each investigation report (three-dimensional, five-dimensional) and report on the results of an investigation;

1. Relevant photographs [the crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the defendant damages or conceals another's property or impairs its utility by any other means. The phrase "conscising the utility of property" refers to de facto or emotional harm that makes it impossible to use the property for its original purpose, and includes temporary change into a state in which the property cannot be used for its original purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). In full view of the above evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant sought access to the above main entrance owned by the victim E, but the above main entrance was set off by the defendant to prevent the defendant's access, and the above main entrance was severely and repeatedly sealed by the defendant's act, the above main entrance and the lower part of the entrance and the lower part of the entrance and the lower part of the victim's entrance and the lower part of the entrance and the lower part, which were not recognized by the defendant's act.