Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has undergone a public auction of a factory building D in South Korea-si.

On January 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the factory located above D located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; and (b) at the market price equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 of the market price set up while exercising the right of retention in this building; (c) “I prohibit the Defendant from having access to other construction-related persons, since this building

Two banners, “,” directed the manager F of the building to remove and store them, and concealed them in container stuffs, thereby impairing their utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of witness E in the second public trial protocol;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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 on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel: (1) The defendant believed that he is a legitimate lien holder and kept the banner of this case after removing it through F; and (2) the above defendant's act does not constitute "cidion" in the crime of property damage, or there is an intention to damage the defendant.

It can not be seen that the Defendant removed the instant banner for the purpose of preventing unfair infringement from the victims, other than the legitimate lien, in order to exercise the right as a land-holder, and accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the illegality is excluded as it constitutes legitimate defense, legitimate act, etc.

2. Whether the crime of damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act constitutes an element such as intent to damage property (i.e., the above assertion) and is established when the crime of damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act harms its utility by destroying, concealing, or any other means. Here, the phrase "harming the utility" means not only creating the property into a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose of use, but also its use