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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On November 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) discovered up a banner in front of D stores in Daejeon Pungdong-gu, Daejeon, to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense, and removed it by means of cutting off the banner that the Defendant works between the victim E and the street trees at his/her location, and then correcting part of the facts charged ex officio to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense.

The effectiveness of the banner owned by the victim was impaired.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. It is denied the charge to the effect that the Defendant did not harm the instant banner itself as property, but did an act as described in the facts charged in order to prevent the reputation and credit infringement of the F. The Defendant’s family members from engaging in the act in order to prevent the infringement of legal interests in the F.

The crime of destruction of property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when a special media record, such as another person’s property, document, or electronic record, is destroyed or concealed, or has impaired its utility by any other means. Here, where the utility is impaired by any damage or concealment or other means, it includes not only cases where goods, etc. are changed into a state in which it cannot be used for its original purpose, but also cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for its original purpose temporarily as a material destruction act (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016, etc.). In a case where the instant banner, which includes the contents of the provision against the Defendant, is removed from the original place and stored in a separate place, the victim at one person’s own stage of demonstration, which includes the contents of the banner, would be at least temporarily reduced its utility value by preventing the Defendant’s side and the general public from widely notifying the contents of the banner. In addition, the Defendant also made the banner in this case.