beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
【2016 order 36】
1. On May 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 17:00, and around 105-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong
2. On May 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened at the places of paragraph (a) above the o’clock on May 26, 2015; (b) opened the entrance door and the entrance door owned by the victims; and (c) laid down a number of eggs, and maintained its utility.
3. On May 31, 2015, the Defendant spreaded food waste to the fingers installed at the entrance and entrance doors owned by the victim, at the location above A. on May 31, 2015.
【2016 order 244】
4. The Defendant: (a) on May 26, 2015, at the place of the foregoing paragraph (a) around 21:00; and (b) on May 26, 201, the victim D hedging with the Defendant.
In addition, it was destroyed that the 150,000 won of repair costs, such as the replacement of the locking device at the house entrance of the victims, which was prepared in advance due to the reason that it was false.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each police statement made to D or E;
1. A criminal investigation report (Submission of a written estimate, etc.);
1. Application of statutes on site photographs;
1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Penalty) [The defendant and his/her defense counsel did not reach the extent that each act described in paragraph (1) of the judgment did not bring about the utility of entrance;
However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, that is, the entrance of the apartment of the corridor type, which is a multi-family housing, is the entrance of each household of the apartment, the purpose and function of the apartment house, the degree of damaging the entrance's aesthetic view due to the defendant's act, as well as the victims, and the resistance that the same apartment residents feel, are considered to be reasonable.