Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the third village of E, which is the owner of the miscellaneous land D in Mineyang-si, and the victim F is the owner of the house G in Mineyang-si, which is the neighboring land of the miscellaneous land.

In the process of land delivery lawsuit filed by E against the victim in around 2013, it was revealed that the above victim’s housing was partially invadedd and constructed. Accordingly, the victim purchased the land in the part that was invaded from E according to the court’s decision of settlement recommendation in around 2014 and agreed to remove the illegal facilities remaining on the land that was not purchased.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned agreement, the Defendant, who did not properly remove illegal facilities, was straw up the fenced around the victim’s house, with a view to obstructing the use of the house. On October 12, 2016, around 09:28, the Defendant: (a) installed a fence on the outer wall, toilet entrance, and windows, etc. of the foregoing house; (b) installed the fence with a brick; (c) prevented the victim from entering the toilet and boiler room; and (d) prevented the victim from lighting or ventilation.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Decision on the certificate of registration, record of compromise or recommendation for compromise;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Recognizing that the victim’s access to the toilet and boiler room is prohibited and not lighting or ventilation is not possible in full view of the evidence mentioned above, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, while allowing this, he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she he/she stockpiled the fence to immediately connect the outer wall, toilet entrance, windows, etc. of the

Therefore, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of damaging property.

must be viewed.

The fact that the defendant gets a wall with the erroneous knowledge of the boundary is merely the motive that the defendant committed the crime of damage to property, and the existence of such circumstance is the intentional establishment of the crime of damage to property.