Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant from around 14:00 on October 6, 2014 to the same month.

7. From 16:00 to 16:00, the roots of bank trees owned by residents of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, in which the names of victims D, etc. are unknown, was destroyed by cutting off the 6glue of trees, such as three glue, two glue trees, one glue tree, one glue tree, etc., in a building, where the roots of bank trees owned by the residents of Yangcheon-gu, in which the Defendant’s house and fence are projected, and the septic tank is broken down, and where the trees in the above bank trees and surrounding areas are to die.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of details of damage and estimates);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (the confirmation of consent of the victim D);

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. The defendant guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the date of the crime of this case alleged that he was in a state where he was unable to obtain permission to cut or remove the above trees from the residents of Dagra who are the owners of the trees listed in the judgment at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant was permitted in advance from Dogra, the tenant representative of the above Dagra, to cut or remove the above trees, but it is consistently stated that D has no explicit permission to cut or remove the above trees to the defendant, since the investigative agency since this investigation agency and the court consistently stated that D has consistently stated that the above Da's prior consent to the act of this case was obtained.

It is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason when the defendant recognizes the illegality of his act and fails to recognize the illegality thereof. Therefore, the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion about this is without merit and therefore guilty is recognized.