A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 9, 2016, the Defendant damaged property: (a) around 09:00, the Defendant removed 60 key operators from the said so-called “Eimitt” in the “Ei set,” in order to arbitrarily bring home appliances, such as TV, cooling, and air conditioning in the guest rooms of the said Li set; and (b) installed a new locking device.

As a result, the Defendant damaged approximately 850,000 won of the market price, which is the property of the victim G construction.

2. At the time and at the place specified in paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) made 13 of TVs 32 to 13, TVs 40 to 20; (b) TVs 50 to 1, 31, 36, 36, 37, 27, 27, and 1 of electronic equipment owned by the victim in each guest room; and (c) sold the said articles to a non-higher in the said place.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property equivalent to approximately KRW 20970,000 in total of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, H, F, and I;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of auction, successful bid, list of seizure, and Kakao message:

1. Investigation report (the complainant C, the J of the first successful bidder of the damaged goods, the confirmation of the sales contract, the amount of damage and the calculation of the amount of damage) (the crime of damage to property is established in the event of damage to another person's property, and the crime of damage to property is established in the event that the defendant removes the locking device owned by the company established by

The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that there is no crime because the victim G construction was removed from an illegally locking device to exercise the right of retention, seems to be that the defendant's act constitutes an act of self-help or a legitimate act.

However, the act of self-help under the Criminal Code is called

claim is not practicable or substantially impossible if it is not possible to preserve the claim by court proceeding.