Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is residing in Gangwon-si C, and the victim D is residing in E adjacent to the above land.

On February 8, 2010, the Defendant acquired land C at a voluntary auction. Since then, the Defendant came to know that the warehouse and toilets annexed to the above house were located on the land C while residing in the house E and used previously, and the Defendant demanded the removal of the above warehouse and toilets to the victim. However, the Defendant refused this, and the Defendant was able to remove the said warehouse and toilets directly.

On July 13, 2017, the Defendant removed the warehouse owned by the victim and removed the change in the toilet, and damaged it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on investigation (attaching documents submitted to victims);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as regards warehouses and toilets removed by the person under investigation);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the warehouse removed by the defendant constitutes a type of a house on the ground of the land owned by the defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that another person's property was damaged. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, ① the above warehouse was used by the victim because the defendant was not the victim and actually used the warehouse until the defendant removed the above warehouse; ② the above warehouse was not included in the auction object at the time when the defendant acquired the ownership of C land by voluntary auction on February 8, 2010; ③ the warehouse was known that the above warehouse was located on the land owned by the defendant after the border around 2013, and the defendant requested the victim to remove it, and the victim heard it.