Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On May 11, 2016, the Defendant removed a steel pent, which was installed at around 16:30 on May 11, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant’s passage interfered with the Defendant’s passage, and thus, the Defendant’s utility was removed.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A certificate of damage to E;

1. Documents to be sent, written opinions, list of records, and details notified to victims;

1. Images of CCTV vehicles, and photographs submitted to victims;

1. Each investigation report (the victim-related investigation, statement of witness, statement of suspect, suspect's assertion) [the defendant and his defense counsel knows that the steel pents knew as a result of the defendant's inquiry into the office of Gyeyang-gun, etc. and he stored them in the vicinity of the house, and thus the defendant's act does not constitute property damage.

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances, namely, the crime of property damage, is established even in cases where the defendant temporarily made it impossible to play a specific role such as goods, etc., and thus, as long as the defendant removed the iron pents, the iron pents could not play a role, and ② the defendant asked the office of Yang Pyeong-gun, although there was a fact that the defendant asked the office of Yang Pyeong-gun, it is about the land of the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun, which is not about the land of the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun, but not about the " iron pents", and its target is the "road water facilities" rather than the "Myeong-gun". ③ Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime on the sole basis that the defendant asked the office of Yang Pyeong-gun, or that the defendant removed the iron pents from some residents, such as "G", as argued.

there is a good reason for believing that there is a good reason

In full view of the fact that the defendant's act of removing a steel fence constitutes a crime of damage to property, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion.