A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who leases part of the first floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C and operates a protein product store using the trade name “D”.

At the end of May, 2013, the Defendant: (a) removed part of the steel plates from the outer wall of the building between the first floor (D) and the second floor (E), which is jointly used with the victim F who leased part of the second floor of the building above, on the ground of the interior of the steel plates installed by the victim, on the ground of the interior of his/her own light products store, and destroyed and damaged the unregistered property at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing pictures of victims;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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. Around 09:00 on July 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened a sign sign sign of a guard company (35 cm x 35 cm) stating “NOSK” installed by the victim F on the right concrete wall of the entrance of the 1st floor “E” of the building in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) concealed it without permission; and (c) concealed it, thereby damaging property in the market.

2. The victim F makes a statement as evidence that seems to correspond to the above facts charged.

However, the victim's statement is the purport that the defendant stated that he was sponsed by the security company sign, and as long as the defendant denies it in this court, it is difficult to believe it as it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(On the other hand, security enterprise G stated that in this court, the sign language of this case was replaced by one's own removal and small size according to the defendant's civil petition that the sign language of this case is too heavy. 3. In conclusion, the above facts charged do not prove the facts charged, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.