Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 24, 2017, around 19:40 on October 24, 2017, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the well-owned by the victim (state) in the vicinity of the Incheon Strengthening Group B, by arbitrarily removing pipes owned by the victim that connect the said house and well, thereby damaging the sum of the repair cost of KRW 528,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Written complaint (including attached documents);

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of On-the-spot), investigation report (Attachment of a factual confirmation), investigation report (Attachment of a written estimate) (the defendant is the defendant, because he arbitrarily connected to the pipe installed by the defendant and used the pipe, so the pipe installed by the victim is removed in order to prevent it, so the crime is not committed;

The argument is asserted.

According to the above evidence, G, the former owner of the F, etc. of the Incheon Strengthening Group, installed wells in the State-owned land adjacent to B, and the Defendant asserted the right of retention and occupied F, etc. by claiming the construction cost of G as the right to preserve, while installing a pumps in the said wells, and imposes the management cost of the said wells, such as the cost of installation, electricity, etc.

However, there is an exclusive right to the defendant because the above well is not only installed in the state-owned land, but also it is difficult to view it within the scope of the lien.

It is difficult to conclude that E is the former owner of B, etc., and it was supplied water through pipes connected to the above well pumps for a long time, which G or the Defendant agreed.

Even if the injured party's use of pipes connected to the above pumps is not legitimate.

Even if the act of this case does not meet the requirements for legitimate acts such as urgency or supplement, and it is socially reasonable even as the defense act does not take legitimate measures such as civil litigation for the exclusion of use.