Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On July 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) removed, as his hand, the ginseng luminous plane of the amount of KRW 50,000 won at the market price in order to prevent the unauthorized access of a church in front of the D church located in the Chungcheongnam-gun budget C on July 10, 2016.

On July 3, 2016, Defendant A, at around 12:40 on July 3, 2016, damaged the utility of the property by removing 50 percent of the market price at 25,000 won at which the victim G et al. were in mind in the vicinity of the D church located in the F of the Chungcheongnam-nam Budget-gun, and destroying the property by removing 50 percent of the victim G et al. from the church to drive the victim G et al.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 High 20 "

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. On-site photographs " 2017 Go fixed 46";

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. The CD submitted by the complainant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs related to CCTV images;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fine for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts that his act is a justifiable act for entry or a legitimate act for the safety management within a church.

However, the act of throwing away another person's property without consent or destroying agricultural produce infringes on the use of the property.

At the time, the defendant is not a person in charge of the safety management of the above church, as well as the degree of undermining the aesthetic view of the church as the inspection that has been planted and the inspection that has not been carried out for several hours was urgently.

It is also difficult to see.

The defendant's above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted even if it is any mother.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.