Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won, by a fine of 300,000 won, and by a fine of 300,000 won, respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the owner of a new building located in E at the Government of the City of Gyeonggi-si, and Defendant B is the investor, and Defendant C is the supplier of materials that has not received part of the price for supply of materials from the victim F.

Defendants came to be front of the said new building on April 12, 2017, around 15:00, at the end of the said new building, Defendant A has the honor to exercise the right of retention in size of 180 cm in width and length, each of which is owned by the injured party attached to the window of the first floor.

“A” is removed from two copies of the franchise card, and Defendant B assisted Defendant A by means of drying one of them, and Defendant C removed the same head of the franchise card.

Accordingly, the defendants jointly damaged three copies of the franchise card of approximately KRW 175,000 in the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The respective legal statements of Defendant A and Defendant C

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Standard contract for construction works, and provisional disposition on the suspension of real estate order;

1. 23 copies of a investigative report (a video analysis) and a closure screen;

1. On-site photographs (netly 5), the Defendants asserted that: (a) as at the time of execution of a provisional disposition to cut off the instant building by a court enforcement officer, the Defendant was aware that it was removed from the franchise card attached by the victim; and (b) there was no intention to damage property; and (c) Defendant B did not jointly commit the crime of property damage, since it was only one copy of the franchise card attached by Defendant A.

However, the crime of destroying property includes not only cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for their original purpose, but also cases where goods, etc. cannot be used for their original purpose as a material destruction, and the utility is deteriorated as a temporary act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016). However, it is recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.