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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, a person operating the “Dpent Corporation” in Sinju City, was a person who was in the custody of the victim, after having reached a civil agreement with the Sinju City Construction Business Company E with respect to the noise in the construction site of the 2 Young-dong Highway Corporation and the loss of business due to dust in the construction site of the 2 Young-dong Highway Corporation.

The Defendant, around 14:00 on February 18, 2016, issued two chapters of a written agreement in custody of the victim Company F with the intent to nullify the said agreement, and subsequently, confirmed whether the content is “.”

“The Agreement was dry and discarded at will after the conclusion of the Agreement.”

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the chapter of the self-agreement on September 25, 2015, which was owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A complaint;

1. Copies of each written agreement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by complainants);

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 the defense counsel’s argument regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order is asserted to the effect that the illegality of the Defendant’s act is dismissed as it did not violate social rules by recognizing the legitimacy, etc. of the objective.

The defendant's and defense counsel's assertion was to be teared because of the error of the contents of the agreement. The reason is that the unilateral tearing of the agreement that he had already affixed the seal does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate social norms, i.e., a justifiable act. Thus, the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion are not accepted.