Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant had experienced inconvenience in living, etc. due to noise generated from the air conditioners outside the air conditioners under 202, which were leased and resided in D, the upper floor of which is the upper floor of 102.

On June 14, 2017, around 30 minutes, around 30, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property in order to cover repair costs by cutting off air-conditioning gas pipes and electric wires from the air-conditioning room, the victim E, installed in 202, the victim E, who owns the victim E, and cutting off air-conditioning gas pipes and electric wires using dr and pents.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Partial statement of the witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on damaged photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant and defense counsel separated the appearance of the instant case with the consent of the victim or police officer, but there is no evidence to prove that the victim consented to the separation, and even if the victim or police officer consented to such separation, there is no fact.

Even if the failure is not the simple separation of the outdoor machine, it shall be deemed that the consent to the separation accompanied by the movement of the outdoor air carrier, which is premised on the continuation of the use of the normal air conditioner, is an illegal act that goes beyond the scope of the consent. Thus, the act of separation of the outdoor air of the defendant, not the technician who makes it impossible to use the air conditioner, without the visit schedule of the technician and the consent of the resident D, is ultimately illegal.

As such, the above argument is rejected.