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, as the head of C's headquarters, is entering into a contract on the housing construction with the landowner D and the owner of the land, and the construction is being carried out in the Suwon City E by obtaining a construction permit from the tolerance city.

At around 13:00 on December 23, 2015, the Defendant removed part of the retaining wall, which is an object owned by the owners of public land, such as victims G, installed in the boundary of the water zone E and F road, for the purpose of securing the passage of a construction vehicle for housing construction, and thereby, made the utility of the property necessary to cover KRW 3,150,000 for the cost of restoration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. On-site photographs of retaining walls;

1. A certificate, etc. fully registered in the F;

1. Investigation report (a written estimate to restore a retaining wall submitted and destroyed by a complainant);

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

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. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was to remove the retaining wall of this case on the side of the contractor, not the defendant, and the retaining wall of this case was not owned by the owners of public land, such as G, but installed by the former owners of E land, and was removed with the consent of the present owners of the above land.

2. Although the party who installed the retaining wall of this case does not have objective data on whose recognition it is, it is sufficiently inferred that the retaining wall of this case was installed in the course of the construction of the F-road, and that the former owner of E land was installed solely on the ground that the retaining wall of this case was located in the E land as a result of the boundary restoration survey, in full view of the ownership and use relationship of the F-road confirmed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, location, use, and the period during which the retaining wall of this case was installed.

It is difficult to see.