A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 19, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property equivalent to approximately KRW 110,000 in the market price by tearing down the relevant banner, which is a parking blocking machine, which is owned by the victim AE in front of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and on the ground that the passage of the banner would be obstructed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness AE;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The alleged defendant's act of removing a banner on the facts of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below is for the exercise of property rights as the owner of a building against the banner installed illegally by the victim, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above decline is not the first legitimate installation, and it is merely the removal of the scrap, and thus it cannot be viewed that the defendant's act of removing the hacks itself constitutes the element of the crime of damage to property. Thus, even though the defendant's act constitutes the element of the crime of damage to property, it is deemed that the defendant's act is a legitimate act permitted under social norms since it is for the exercise of property rights as the owner of a building against the banner and hacks installed illegally by the victim.

2. In the determination of property damage, the "nobclature" constitutes a case where not only the act of material destruction makes it impossible to serve the original purpose of the property but also the act of temporarily performing a specific role of the property (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, including the above evidence, the defendant is stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment.