beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant, as the vice-chairperson of the church building of D Foundation E, was in charge of the construction of the above church to Asan City F. G, the victim G owned a house on the H land adjacent to the land scheduled to be newly built of the above church, the victim I owned a house on the J land adjacent to the land scheduled to be newly built of the above church, the victim K owned a house on the L house adjacent to the land scheduled to be newly built of the above church, and the victim K owned a house on the land adjacent to the land scheduled to be newly built of the above church, and the victims' house was over the boundary of the land scheduled to be newly built of
1. Around 10:00 on July 27, 2016, the Defendant of the damaged part of the house owned by the Victim K, even though the executive officer, who was trying to execute a substitute for the part over which the house owned by the Victim K was invaded by the boundary of the said land at the F church in the F church in Busan City, went back to the execution after the completion of the survey due to the lack of the result of the survey, the Defendant had the removal business entity M damaged the house of approximately 40 square meters owned by the victim of the market due to the removal business entity’s damage to the house owned by the victim of the market price.
2. Around 12:00 on August 12, 2016, the Defendant of the damaged part of a house owned by the victim G was still pending a civil trial on the grounds that the house owned by the victim G was invaded by the boundary of the above land at the same place as the above paragraph 1, but on the ground that the new construction of the above church was delayed, the Defendant arbitrarily caused the removal business entity M to destroy the house owned by the victim of the market in the manner identical with the above paragraph 1, thereby impairing its utility.
3. Around 08:30 on August 18, 2016, the Defendant destroyed a house owned by a victim under the market price under the same method as the above 2 paragraph, on the ground that the instant church construction was delayed, on the ground that the said church construction was delayed, and thus, the Defendant destroyed a house owned by a victim under the market price.