Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 29, 2016, the Defendant removed the boundary stone of the fenced fenced in the victim D’s residence located in the Gangseo-gu, Gangwon-do, Seoul around March 29, 2016, as a boom, and the same year.

4. around 10. Around 10.m., at the above place, the fenced fenced of the wall was removed as a boom.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the fence that is the victim's own market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted 15 copies of the photograph submitted by the victim D [the Defendant and the defense counsel merely moved the location of the boundary stone and brine, and do not destroy it or impair its utility.

In the crime of destroying property, the term "conscising the utility of property" means not only changing the property into a state which makes it impossible to use it for its original purpose, but also converting it into a state which is unusable temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993, etc.). It is reasonable to view that the removal of the boundary seat and boom used by the victim as a wall and moving it to another place would impair the utility of it as a wall of the boundary seat and boom. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

On February 29, 2016, the defendant and his defense counsel were allowed to remove the boundary and brine from the injured party.

However, the above argument is not accepted because the evidence presented in the instant case alone is not sufficient to recognize it.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines (in addition to cases where the defendant has received a summary order of KRW 300,000 as a crime of destroying property in this court on October 14, 2016, taking into account the fact that there has not been any previous crimes, the health conditions

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 Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order.