Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a construction site D, a contractor for another project, and the victim E is the owner of the Ffold-si Seoul Metropolitan City Franch (90 square meters) at the same time.

In order to improve the productivity of farmland in Pyeongtaek, the victims have been managing the said farmland by means of having their land owners provide fertilizers, spawn down, and wald rice farmers, etc.

In order to complete the above C work as soon as possible, the Defendant excavated the above farmland with a depth of about five meters from May 30, 2017 to June 15, 2017 without the victim’s permission, and cut up soil, laid off a water pipe of about seven meters in length and about 1.62 meters in diameter at the three meters above the ground, and then covered the soil again. The Defendant released the remaining soil [around 14.42 meters in diameter of the underground water pipe (around 14.42 meters in diameter)] and laid off the earth (around 14.42 meters in width of the underground water pipe). As a result, the Defendant inflicted damage on the victim’s production power of the said farmland by means of mixing the soil of the part of the ground surface that was properly managed to dnee rice death with the soil that was deep underground.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the usefulness of the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 366 of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment, the selection of fines [the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be deemed as an act of causing C construction to farmland owned by the victim, such as the act entered in the facts charged, which would impair the utility of the farmland, and there was no intention

The argument is asserted.

In the event of damage or concealment in the crime of damage to the utility of property or by any other means, it includes not only cases where goods, etc. are changed into a state in which they cannot be used for their original purpose, but also cases where they are made in a state in which they cannot temporarily play a specific role, such as goods, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016). This Court is the court.