Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The victim C is the current owner who newly constructs 27 households of multi-household housing in the area D at the time of discussion, and the defendant, who entered into a contract with E and F, but did not receive the construction cost, and the legal dispute between them is continuing.

On November 16, 2014, at around 17:00, the Defendant damaged property by harming the utility of the wall so that the property can be damaged by promptly applying the color frame to the right-hand side of the parking lot entrance of the first floor of the above multi-household house to the right-hand side of the multi-household house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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 asserted that there was no criminal intent for damage since the defendant believed that the defendant is a legitimate lien holder and entered a frame easily so that he could easily be seen.

In recognition of the criminal intent of destroying and damaging property, it does not necessarily mean that there is a planned intention of damage or actively wish to damage the property, but there is awareness that it would lose the utility of the property against the owner's will. Here, it would impair the utility of the property not only make it impossible to use the property for its original purpose, but also make it impossible to use it in a state where it would impair its utility.

(Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993). Even if a frame that can easily sponsed, writing “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the right side of the entrance of multi-household parking lots would lose the utility of property against the owner’s will.