Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the husband of the victim C (V, 55 years old) who is in a divorce lawsuit with the victim.

1. On March 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Defendant’s crime of around 14:20 on March 5, 2017, 201, by causing E, the key agent, who was the victim’s owner, to dissatisfy the 460,000 won total market price of the victim’s possession, which was installed in the gate and the gate, on the ground that the former victim installed the gate and the gate in the gate and the gate.

2. On September 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the CCTV owned by the victim, which was installed at the victim at the victim’s seat, to the extent of KRW 175,00,00 for repair cost by cutting down the CCTV on September 13, 2017, around 00:52, the Defendant destroyed the CCTV owned by the victim at the victim’s seat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and witness F;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. In order for the Defendant to be recognized as a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the investigation report (Attachment to the 112 Report Processing Table), investigation report (as to the field situation at the time of dispatch by 112 Report), and what acts constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act must meet all the requirements, such as the motive or justification of the act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance between the legal interests protected and the legal interests infringed, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10321, Aug. 21, 2008, etc.). On February 25, 2017, the Defendant lived with the victim of domestic violence, such as having injured the victim and having been sentenced to a fine, etc. on February 25, 2017, and the Defendant was living outside the victim’s house at the time of damage.

The defendant did not know the password of the victim after having committed the crime on the day of the case, and it was impossible to find out the password from the victim.