Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 2016, the Defendant sold 27 meters in length and 0.5 meters in width to rice paddys and rice paddys, and 0.8 meters in width from the land owned by the victim in Ycheon-si, the Defendant sold 50 meters in length to dry field using digging machines from the land owned by the victim in E, and damaged the property of the victim by using digging machines from the land owned by the victim in F. 68 meters in length to dry field, 0.8 meters in depth, 0.8 meters in width, and 0.8 meters in width.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Each police statement made to D, G, and I;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to On-the-spot), investigation report (to hear the suspect, witness, and victim telephone), (the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the intention to damage another person's property due to the permission of H, which is the public official G in charge of Jeju City who is the contractor, and the recipient of the contract;

The argument is asserted.

However, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence revealed by the Defendant, namely, the construction work was not originally planned in the original design. The construction work that the Defendant strongly requested G and H to make a subcontract by changing the design against G and H, G permitted the Defendant to do so on condition that H and the landowner’s consent is obtained, and the Defendant did not obtain consent from the damaged party. The Defendant performed the construction work without any confirmation as to whether he/she consented to the use of the land by the injured party although he/she was well aware of the fact that each land was owned by the injured party, and G or H determined that the construction work was possible as originally designed differently from the Defendant, but it was a situation in which G or H was examined other construction work than the original design in accordance with the Defendant’s assertion. Therefore, the Defendant’s consent to land use was also obtained from the injured party.