Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 19, 2014, at around 15:27, 2014, the Defendant, as a C apartment manager, destroyed the repair cost of KRW 1,500,000 of the elevator to ensure that, on the grounds that the victim D, who is a resident, was aware of the details of the use of the ordinary apartment management fee, the Defendant was infinite and damaged the elevator on the 11st floor, which is the victim’s residence, to prevent the elevator from going up to the 11st floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Renovation images of the video CD (CCTV);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defense counsel argued that D installed a card key on the elevator to prevent other residents of the above apartment from using the 11st floor, and the defendant's removal of the above apartment as the manager of the above apartment, so it constitutes a justifiable act.

According to the evidence, the card key of the elevator of this case was installed prior to the construction and sale of the apartment of this case, and it was installed for the security of the 11st floor where only the family members of D reside, and the defendant committed the act in conflict with D as to the use of management expenses, and when the above card key was damaged, it is recognized that D's family members cannot enter the 11th floor area using the above elevator. In light of the circumstances, contents, and result of the above crime committed by the defendant, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate act.

Therefore, the defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.