Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On March 15, 2019, at around 12:30 on March 15, 2019, the Defendant: (a) opened a steel broom at the front door of the front door of the first floor and the front door of the glass material installed in the front door of the second floor and the rear door, under the pretext of exercising the right of retention for the victim C residing in the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B building; and (b) obstructed the victims from having access to the said room by not informing the victims thereof; and (c) prevented the victims from having access to the said room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as of the fourth trial date);

1. C’s legal statement;

1. The photographs of the corrected entrance;

1. Investigation report (verification of the process of change in B ownership);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to entire registered matters;

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

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

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

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant had no intention to destroy and damage property, and there was a dispute over the right of retention at the time, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act has impaired the utility of each room as the Defendant’s act.

2. Determination

A. The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when it damages or conceals another person’s property or damages its utility by any other means. Here, the phrase “conscising the utility of property” refers to de facto or emotional harm making the property unable to be provided for its original purpose of use, and includes temporarily making the property unusable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007; 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016).

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the defendant was the first floor and the second floor.