Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Criminal facts

피고인은 2017. 9. 9. 11:00 경 서울 강서구 B 아파트 C 호에 있는 피해자 D(53 세) 의 집 앞에서, 피해자 소유인 시가 약 15만 원 상당의 현관문 잠금장치 1개를 드릴로 부숴 손괴하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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 on the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

1. The alleged defendant was removed to replace the victim's lock locking device, and there was no intention of damage.

2. The crime of damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when it damages or conceals another person's property or impairs its utility by other means. Here, the phrase "conscising the utility of property" refers, in fact, to make the property in a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose of use due to appraisal, and includes temporarily converting the property into a state where it cannot be used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Do1576, Nov. 23, 1971; 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007). According to the above legal principle, if the defendant was aware that it would harm the utility of property temporarily due to the defendant's act at the time of the act, the intention of damage may be recognized.

According to the above evidence, the defendant, without the consent of the victim, removed the lock locker of this case from the locker, and did not attach the locker again, the victim reported that the defendant was removed from the lock locker, and eventually, the police officer called out due to the dispute, and the victim was removed from the lock locker.