Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person operating a factory in Gwangju City, etc., and there was a dispute over the construction work of child care centers for victims E on the adjacent D ground.

On July 17, 2012, around 12:12, 2012, the Defendant maintained the utility of the Defendant by having the employees of the Defendant arbitrarily remove and use it for the purpose of preventing scattering dust by removing it from scattering dust, which is installed on the parking lot on the parking lot at the construction site at the above childcare center.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of CD video-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On July 14, 2012, around 10:17, the Defendant arbitrarily removed from the construction site of the child-care center, on the ground that the Defendant’s noise occurs as a result of the removal of a iron plate of the iron pents installed by the said victim for the purpose of scattering a spath on the ground of the construction site owned by him/her;

B. The Defendant on the 20th day of the same month, around 09:24, and above A.

The steel board pents described in the paragraph arbitrarily removed three parts of the steel board and made the utility thereof.

2. The most objective and important evidence to prove each of the above facts charged is the CCTV screen that was recorded at the time of the instant case, and examining this, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had the intention of damage to the land owned by the Defendant, considering that the steel pents, which was at the time stated in each of the facts charged, had been located far away from the date of the instant case, and the Defendant was merely moving it to the land owned by the Defendant.

In addition to the above video, a prosecutor submits a statement to E in this legal and investigative agency as evidence corresponding to each of the above facts charged, but it is difficult to believe that it is obviously against the above video.