Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, around June 2016, only referred to as “victim” in the written indictment of the Victim E before the Plaintiff’s Dollacheon-gun, Gangwon-do. However, according to the evidence, it is obvious that the victim refers to E and does not substantially disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense, and thus, the victim is specified as above.

The natural stone in the amount of KRW 100,000 was damaged by red paintings that are not crossed out on one natural stone for the stable use of the owned house.

2. On August 19, 2016, the Defendant was engaged in the work in digging the ground at the same place.

F. As the victim E-state 1.

In such a way as to instruct the gathering of one of the sublime trees owned by the owner, the market value was 200,000 won or more of sublime trees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Investigation report (on-site photographs attached and confirmation of the amount of damage to property), on-site photographs (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the tree of the sublime as indicated in the judgment exists on the ground of the State, and is owned by the State.

However, in full view of the defendant's partial statement, witness E's legal statement, field photo, etc., the victim E was planted, and the tree appears to have been across the boundary between the land owned by the victim E and the State-owned land, so the tree of the sublime in the holding is deemed to have been owned by the victim E.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fine for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order does not harm the utility of natural stone because the victim had already come to the natural stone in relation to criminal facts 1. Thus, the defendant did not harm the utility of natural stone.

However, the crime of destroying property in Article 366 of the Criminal Code is committed.