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

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 5, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property by removing a banner equivalent to KRW 300,000 of the market value, which is the victim D, attached to the wall surface of the fourth floor of the building on the front of the building in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, by using the services of the company for the bridge, through the employees of the company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing certificates for all registered matters, such as on-site and banner photographs, estimates, written decisions on each provisional disposition, written decisions on each of such provisional dispositions, written decisions on each of such provisional dispositions, written contracts

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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 of the Provisional Payment Order provides that the crime of damage to property is established when the property of another person is destroyed, concealed, or impaired its utility by any other means. Here, the term "damage to the utility" means not only converting the property into a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose, but also converting it into a state where it cannot be used temporarily (Supreme Court Decision 92Do1345 delivered on July 28, 1992). It can be sufficiently recognized that the use of the property has been lost as long as the defendant removed the banner installed for his claim for his right.

Meanwhile, even if the Defendant removed the above banner at the level of management and preservation of the aggregate building, the said banner was in dispute between the Defendant and the victim at the time, and only the phrase “provisional disposition execution and non-information” was written on the banner. Thus, the Defendant’s arbitrary removal of the banner without taking other lawful measures does not constitute a justifiable act because it does not meet the requirements of reasonableness of the means, balance of the protected interests and the benefit and interest infringed, urgency, and supplement.

[ proper to see]