Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. From June 2012, the Defendant: (a) extracted approximately 65 renunciations from the victim D’s dry-si’s counter to Changwon-si’s counter; and (b) destroyed approximately 65 renunciations of the white sewage from the market price, the victim owned.

2. At the same place as before and after October 2012, the Defendant extracted approximately KRW 430 of the 00 sewage sewage discharged by the victim D, thereby damaging approximately 430 of the market price, which is the victim’s ownership.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each investigation report (in the vicinity of the site of the case, attaching a map, attaching a photograph of the site of the case, conducting field inspection, etc.);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning a summary search, screen and output;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 366 of the choice of punishment (comprehensively: Selection of a fine);

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel asserted to the purport that the Defendant does not constitute a crime of causing property damage against the Defendant, since the Defendant did not recognize all of such facts even if he was in mind, even if he did not know of the fact. The Defendant did not establish a crime of causing property damage against the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. In recognition of the criminal intent of destroying and damaging property, it does not necessarily need to have a planned intent of damage or actively wish to damage the property, but there is awareness that it would have lost the utility of the property against the owner’s will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993).

Therefore, the above evidence is examined.