Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 13, 2016, at around 20:10, the Defendant, at the conference room for the representatives of the occupants in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4 Complex C apartment complex 2, who is the chairperson of the above tenant representative meeting, was the chairperson of the above tenant representative meeting, and the latter part of the second part of the first part of the first part of the second part of the meeting, caused the decision-making seal on the ground that he did not fit with D, the management director of the above tenant representative meeting, and caused the damage to the property equivalent to KRW 346,470 in the market price by making the decision-making seal and the book attached thereto.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. An USB recording file;

1. Application of each photograph, quotation, and each statute of the minutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act continued to discuss the matters that were not referred to the agenda in advance at the time of the tenant representative meeting, and the defendant's request for accommodation and the defendant's salary at the time of the meeting to ensure smooth progress of the meeting was found to have caused a defect in the books by mistake and intentionally damaging them, not intentionally, but the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act.

However, according to the above evidence, since it is recognized that the defendant was interested more than necessary in the course of the meeting that caused the death of the defendant through several times, the defendant's intentional act of damaging property is recognized, and considering the contents of the defendant's act and the situation at the time of the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

We cannot accept the above assertion.