Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

(B) On October 19, 201, the Defendant reported that 104 Dong-dong representatives and 104 dong-dong 104 dong-dong 104 dong-dong 104 dong-dong 10, and that E of the auditor E of the council of occupants' representatives without the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives included "the satisfaction survey on the entrusted management business without the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives" and had the head of the management office F remove it, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the documents of satisfaction survey.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a survey on satisfaction with entrusted management enterprises;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that the satisfaction survey document on whether the constituent elements of the crime is satisfied is removed and returned to the victim, and thus, it does not constitute the element of the crime of destroying and damaging property.

The crime of destroying and damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or when the utility thereof is harmed by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of property" means making the property in a state where it is virtually impossible to provide it for the original purpose of use for appraisal, and temporarily converting the property into a state where it cannot play a specific role in

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do7219, Dec. 22, 2006; 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007; 2012Do7406, Aug. 30, 2012). According to the evidence, the Defendant instructed F to collect and return a written survey on the satisfaction of the Defendant’s postal service at each household located at the entrance of the 104th floor.