beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. From April 10, 2018 to June 9, 2018, the Defendant entering a fence, via the entrance door of a farm managed by the victim C (53 years of age and south) in the south-dong-gu, dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, to damage locks as follows 2, and intrudes the building managed by the victim into the warehouse installed inside the farm.
2. In order to intrude into a warehouse at the date, time, and place under the above paragraph (1) above, the Defendant destroyed and damaged locks equivalent to KRW 8,00, market price of which was corrected at the warehouse entrance in order to damage the warehouse and damaged its utility.
3. As described in the above paragraph (1), the Defendant: (a) 10 to 60,00 of the market value in the scrap drying machine in the farm managed by the victim; and (b) 2 to 3 to 10,000 to 10,000 to 30,000 won of the market value in the freezing room in the warehouse.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement of C by a witness in the third protocol of trial;
1. Each police statement of C;
1. C’s statement;
1. On-site photographs;
1. The 112 Reporting Case List [the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention to commit the larceny, but the defendant's criminal intent is sufficiently recognized in full view of the facts admitted by the evidence above] shall be applied to the law.
1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines;
1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. As to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel were the farms that the Defendant leased and managed. However, the Defendant, while hospitalized in the hospital, was satisfing the fence by the victim’s unauthorized intrusion and satisfing the fence.