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

1. On October 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00 on October 15, 2015, on the ground that the victim D’s house of Seo-gu Busan Western apartment C (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) was not the victim’s house, thereby damaging the property that the repair cost of KRW 100,000,000 should be collected from the electric power distribution line connected to the electric power distribution plate and cutting it.

2. On July 17, 2016, around 10:14, the Defendant destroyed the property in order to cover KRW 1.50,000 of the repair cost by removing the CCTV monitoring camera connected line installed by the victim on the front corridor of the apartment site in this case by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness D (part) and E's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police and prosecutor's statement concerning D;

1. A copy of a receipt or deposit slip;

1. Investigation report (or relative investigation of witnesses);

1. Application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 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. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance door of the instant apartment and intruded into D’s residence on the ground that D’s house does not stand in front of the entrance door of the instant apartment on October 12, 2015; and (b) opened the door door of the instant apartment; and (c) invaded D’s house.

2. In a criminal trial for determination, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge feel true that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010). As evidence conforming to this part of the facts charged, D has the respective statements in investigative agencies and this court.

D-.