Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On July 19, 2015, the Defendant found that, at the entrance of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment and returned home with her friend, a banner of about 5 meters in length was contaminated with a horizontal tree, and caused a traffic accident by lurring banner, which was installed by the victim C (the age of 57) on the ground that it was obvious that the vehicle accident occurred due to the luring banner, while drinking alcohol with her friendor at the entrance of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment, the Defendant saw the effect of the banner by her hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Photographs of destruction of banner (five pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as photograph of destruction (investigative records, 31 through 47 pages);

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

1. The defendant asserts that Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [Judgment on the defendant's assertion] remove the illegal banner of this case that interferes with pedestrians or drivers' view and caused an accident, and that it is not illegal as it constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act without the intention of damage.

As long as property is considered as property in the crime of causing damage to property under the Criminal Code, it cannot be said that it is an illegal advertisement or illegal posted on the roadside without permission, it cannot be an object of the crime of causing damage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do899 delivered on June 22, 1999, etc.). Even if the instant banner was illegally attached as alleged by the Defendant, as long as the said banner has utility value as property, it constitutes an object of property damage, and as long as the Defendant had intent to tear it to damage it, the intent of damage is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, in order to eliminate illegality as a legitimate act that does not violate social norms, the first justification of the motive or purpose of the act, and the second means or method of the act.