Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

Defendant B is an on-site leader of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Construction Site and Defendant A is a daily worker, the victim F is the owner of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu and the ground building, which is the side of G land, and the person who installed a fence between G land and H land.

On March 6, 2017, at around 12:13, the Defendants jointly damaged the repair cost to verify whether the boundary fence is separated from the fence installed on the G land among the existing construction works of new building for the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-ground construction works. Defendant B instructed Defendant A to remove the boundary fence from the large sea (one mix hereinafter “one mix”). Defendant A instructed Defendant A to remove the boundary fence from the large sea (one mix mix). Defendant A instructed Defendant A to remove the boundary fence from the large sea mix in accordance with the direction, and left the view of the victim’s boundary.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, Defendant B instructed Defendant B to remove the fenced with a large amount of piracy in order to verify whether the fenced fenced with the fenced with the fenced with the G land was separated from the fenced with the fenced with the G land; Defendant A left the fenced with a large amount of piracy from March 6, 2017 to December 12:00; Defendant A suspended work at a small amount of 12:00; Defendant A suspended work at around 12:13 thereafter.

We examine whether the Defendants were guilty of damage.

Defendant

In light of the parts, frequency, and intensity of the fences at the price of the large sea by A, the Defendants were able to damage the fences at the boundary.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

In addition, the defendants recognized the possibility that the fence might be damaged due to the above price action only by the fact that the defendants are on-site workers.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no evidence to prove the willful negligence on the damage of the Defendants.

Accordingly, the conclusion is followed.