Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 10, 2015, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s land C and D, the victim E installed a wire-net fence on the land of Hanam-dong-dong-dong-gun and D, thereby damaging the Defendant’s repair cost of approximately 10 meters out of the above wire-net pents owned by the victim, on the ground that the said pents interfered with their passage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Cadastral map, on-site photograph, and satellite photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Submission of a detailed statement for recovery from damage to a victim);

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. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not have any bridges owned by the victim (hereinafter “the instant pents”), but is limited to the percentage of bridges of the instant pents to the extent that does not exceed two meters in width, and it is difficult to believe that the repair cost indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment was excessively excessive.

In addition, the instant fence interfered with the Defendant’s right to passage, and the Defendant’s act was committed to remove illegal state that infringes on his rights, and such act constitutes an act that does not violate the Criminal Act, self-help or social rules, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

2. Determination

A. First, upon examining the Defendant’s first argument to the effect that the establishment of the instant facts charged itself is denied, credibility can be acknowledged as to the statement, such as the statement made by F to an investigative agency with which the F was engaged in installing the instant pentice at the request of E and E, the owner of the instant pentice, and the consistency in the statement made as a witness at this court. In addition, the evidence duly adopted in the instant case and the evidence duly examined as evidence are comprehensively considered.