Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the field of dry field in the Yanan-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and there has been disputes over the boundary of dry field E(64 years old) and dry field, the owner of the field of dry field adjacent to the above dry field.

At around 15:00 on March 5, 2015, the Defendant, at the dry field owned by the Defendant, laid down the bottom of the pole fence (60m in length, 1.2m in height) of the steel-frame network fence (1.2m in height) installed by the victim at the boundary of the said dry field and D dry field, and damaged the market value of the victim’s property under the market value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of E and F;

1. Application of the statutes governing the case-related photographs

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine) [Judgment of the defendant's defense counsel] for the crime of causing property damage asserted that the defendant's defense counsel cannot be deemed to have impaired the utility of the steel network fence due to the act recorded in the crime in its judgment. However, the crime of causing property damage in the crime of causing property damage not only makes the goods not available for its original purpose, but also making the goods not available for its original purpose, thereby impairing its utility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). Thus, it is deemed that part of the steel network fence installed by the victim due to the act described in the crime in the above crime were destroyed and removed, and the utility of the steel network fence installed by the victim was partly lost. Thus, the defendant's defense counsel cannot be accepted.)

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the victim E, who observed the defendant's act at the time, time, and place specified in the facts charged, tried to photograph the defendant's act, 7-8 times the part of the victim's arms, which is a dangerous object, continues to be 7-8 times.