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

The defendant, who was divorced with C before five years, is trying to send the victim D, who was living in the third floor of the building in the name of C for the division of property, to another place.

Around September 17:12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the CCTV camera, which was installed on the outer wall of the said house, by putting 600,000 won in front of the market price, on the ground that “the victim, other than house delivery, installed CCTV” in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household Housing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as of the second trial date);

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (to attach CCTV photographs installed and CCTV video data storage CDs);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the act of destroying CCTV by the victim does not constitute a crime as a justifiable act or self-defense. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion should be judged individually by considering the following conditions: (a) the motive or purpose of the act is legitimate; (b) the means or method of the act is reasonable; (c) the balance between the protected interests and the protected interests of infringement; (d) the fourth urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002); and (b) the type, degree, method of infringement; and (d) the specific type of legal interests infringed by the act of infringement; and (e) the degree of completion of the act of self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act.