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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was living as the victim B and the legal couple for more than 10 years, and was tried to get a divorce on November 22, 2017.

On November 23, 2017, the Defendant removed and destroyed the 200,000 won of the market price of the victim installed using the drb in advance, on the ground that the 3rd floor of the north-gu C building was found in the residence of the victim of the 3rd floor of the north-gu C building at the port of port on November 23, 2017, but the entrance was locked and the victim did not open the door.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning a report on investigation (related to field photographs) and a report on investigation (related to a written estimate for damage);

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 of the Provisional Payment Order / [The defendant is an article owned by the defendant in whose criminal facts are stated therein, and thus the defendant removed it.]

It argues that the crime of damage cannot be a crime of damage.

However, as to the above defendant's argument, B argues that the defendant's satisf was to install the village.

The Defendant’s assertion differs as above, but at the time of the installation, the Defendant, B, and their children resided in the instant building, and the entrance of the 3rd floor was opened in the key, but the Plaintiff was replaced with the instant fishing village in the number key which is convenient for use due to inconvenience.

According to the above argument by the defendant and the victim, the fishery of this case constitutes the joint ownership of the defendant and the victim with property acquired while the defendant and the victim live together as a couple.

However, other's property, which is the object of the crime of damaging property, is owned by the sole person.