Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A was the chairperson of the Daejeon Middle-gu Dtel Autonomous Management Committee, and the defendant B was the head of the Dtel management office.

1. The Defendants jointly released the corrective device installed on the entrance door for the reason that the victim E, who is the actual owner, did not pay the management expenses, at around 10:00 of the end of May 2009, the dtel 1306, and went into the entrance and intrudes the residence of the victim.

2. Defendant A destroyed and damaged a correction device equivalent to 75,000 won at the market price owned by the victim as set forth in paragraph 1 at the same time and place.

3. On October 2009, Defendant A disposed of and destroyed the unclaimed things in the market value, including the books, chairs, and small waves owned by the victim, which were moved to a Dtel underground room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E's partial statement;

1. The Defendants: Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (Joint Residence, Selection of Fine): Article 366 of the Criminal Act (Destruction of Property Damage and Damage, Selection of Fine).

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include the Defendants who intruded into the victim’s residence without undergoing due process of law to collect management expenses, and the Defendant A has damaged the property.

However, the defendants are against the defendants, and the victim's officetels that did not meet management expenses for two years or more but failed to meet management expenses, which resulted in the crime in order to receive management expenses even by allowing another person to use the officetels.