A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

【Defendant A, on September 17, 2012, leased a factory building located in Leecheon-si D (hereinafter “instant factory”), but there was a dispute as to whether to terminate the lease contract with the lessor due to the succession of the obligation in lieu of the payment of the lease deposit, etc., the instant factory was transferred from C to E on April 28, 2015 due to the sale and purchase, and again, on July 20, 2016, the ownership was transferred from E to E (hereinafter “victim Company”).

【Defendant A committed the instant crime at around 02:00 on February 17, 2017, and around 02:00, the instant factory, which was installed in the factory entrance of the instant case owned by the victim company, was cut off and damaged, and invaded into the instant factory.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each legal statement statute in witness G, H and B;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act (1) and the selection of fines, respectively, for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (the addition of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the crime of destroying property heavier than the punishment) for concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. 주장의 요지 피고인 A은 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 잠금장치를 절단기로 자르고 공장 안으로 침입한 사실은 인정하나 피고인 A의 변호인은 피고인 A이 자물쇠를 손괴하였는지 불분명 하다는 취지의 주장도 하고 있으나, 피고인 A은 이 법정에서 자신이 자물쇠를 부수고 침입한 사실을 인정하였고 (B에 대한 증인신문 과정에서도 피고인 A은 자신이 ‘ 키를 깠다 ’며 위 사실을 인정하는 취지의 진술을 한 바 있다), 수사기관에서도 마찬가지의 진술을 한 바...