The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an employee of “stock company E”.

1. At around 07:40 on September 18, 2014, the Defendant instructed H, a guard company employee, to remove and conceal one banner equivalent to 50,000 won at the victim I’s market price installed in the building site of “Gel” located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

2. On September 24, 2014, around 09:50, the Defendant instructed the said H at the above place, and removed three placards equivalent to KRW 1,210,000, at the market price of the victim-owned land installed at that place, and concealed them.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the property amounting to KRW 1,760,000, total of the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. I's legal statement;

1. An guard log reported by H to A;

1. An guards removed from a banner by direction A;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as approval of project plans;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. A fine not exceeding 700,000 won to be suspended;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant or his defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code (the first offender is the defendant, and the defendant, as the team leader of the E-stock company, requested the removal of the banner of this case after consultation with the law firm upon the instruction of an officer in Japan, and the circumstances and details of the dispute related to the project site of this case)

1. The summary of the assertion and the defense counsel: ① The instant banner is consistent with the fences owned by JJ Co., Ltd. and does not constitute “other’s property”; ② the instant banner was stored after removing it through the guard company; thus, it does not constitute “harbor” in the crime of property damage; ③ the victim, other than the legitimate lien holder, is not in order to prevent the legitimate exercise of rights by the land owner.