Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the director of the management office of the Mayang-gu B apartment in Ansan-gu.

On July 19, 2017, the Defendant laid down the bottom part of the instant apartment C-dong and the instant apartment C-dong and the instant d-dong group with an electric saw, without going through a resolution of the resident representatives' meeting or the consent of resident occupants. On August 4, 2017, the Defendant laid down trees in the same manner and laid down trees with a total of 29 stock trees.

Accordingly, the defendant was damaged by cutting 29 shares of trees in the market price that is the joint ownership of the above apartment occupants.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the protocol of the trial;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the place of the previous business affairs, the management rules on apartments, the civil petition log, the minutes of the council of occupants' representatives, and the status of cutting trees;

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. 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 asserts that the facts charged of this case are not specified.

As the facts charged are required to limit the object of trial to the court, to specify the scope of defense of the accused, and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right, it is desirable to clearly specify the facts, such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime. However, as long as it is necessary, it may cause interference with the institution and maintenance of the public prosecution, it is sufficient to state the time and place of the crime to the extent that it does not conflict with the time and time of double prosecution or prescription, and to the extent that the territorial jurisdiction can be measured, and in the method, it is sufficient to state the elements to the extent that the elements of the crime are specified.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2727 Decided December 23, 2015).