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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 14, 2013, the Defendant arbitrarily stated the phrase "E building owned by the victim D" located in Suwon-si District C, 104, 105, 106, 107, 2, 3, 4, and 5th floor of the 5th floor new building, "E building owned by the victim D", which had the effect of a glass hold equivalent to 300,000 won at the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of photographs and receipt statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Penalty concerning the Crime. Article 366 (Selection of Fine)

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The alleged defendant's act of writing letters on the glass of the building does not reach the extent of undermining the utility of the building, and thus does not constitute the elements of the crime of causing property damage.

2. The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or when the utility thereof is harmed by other means. Here, the term "procing the utility of the property" refers to making the property in de facto or in appraisal that it is impossible to be used for its original purpose, and includes temporarily converting the property into a state in which it cannot be used.

In particular, whether an act of writing on the wall of a structure constitutes an act of undermining the utility of the structure should be determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the use and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation and lighting, view, etc. of the structure, the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the structure, the displeasure or resistance of users of the structure, the difficulty and difficulty of restoration to the original state, expenses to be incurred, the purpose and continuity of the act, and the situation at the time

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590 Decided June 28, 2007