beta
Text
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.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the person who operates studio rental business in Seosan-si C and D's land ownership, which is the defendant's wife B, and the victim E is the actual owner of F's land adjacent to the above land.
On April 15, 2019, the Defendant removed and damaged a fence of approximately KRW 600,000 (13 meters in length, 13 meters in height) installed by the victim on April 6, 2019 at the boundary of the land of Seosan City, Seosi, D and F, through the studio-resident, on the ground that it interferes with the passage of the studio-resident.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of the full certificate of registered matters, the degree of boundary restoration surveying result, related photographs, and estimates
1. The alleged defendant did not constitute property damage, and did not intend to cause property damage to the defendant, and the defendant's act does not contravene social rules.
2. For the crime of causing damage to property, the term "damage" means not only the case of making an article in a state in which it is impossible to be provided for its original purpose due to a material destruction, but also the case of temporarily making the article in a state in which it is impossible to play a specific role;
It can be seen that the demolition of a fence installed by the defendant on the boundary of the victim's land would have done its role. Therefore, it constitutes property damage, and the defendant's intention of property damage is also recognized.
In addition, it is not clear whether the defendant has the right to request the removal of the fence, and it does not seem that there was an urgent situation for the defendant to remove the fence, since the studio resident, etc. was installed in the fence at the time.
Nevertheless, the Defendant’s arbitrary removal of the fence does not constitute a justifiable act.
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
Application of Statutes
1..