The defendant shall be innocent.

On July 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00, and around 11:00, at the management office of the “Yyang-gu Kuyang-gu Seoul Apartment Complex”, the Defendant: (b) destroyed the said vehicle in an amount of KRW 432,258, the repair cost, such as the repair cost of the said vehicle, which was 432,258 won, by the victim D, a resident autonomous president, to talk with the victim due to the problem of E and management expenses in arrears, his/her father, his/her father, and F, his/her father, who was his/her his/her father, got involved in a dispute with the victim; and (c) while participating in a dispute that was being kept adjacent to the said vehicle, he/she was parked in the victim G of the victim who was parked in the said area, and caused the damage to its utility.

Judgment

The crime of damage to property is established when exercising tangible power over all or part of the property owned by another person, thereby destroying or reducing the utility according to its original purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do1592, Jan. 31, 1989). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant is recognized as having friendship with the above vehicle owned by the victim at the time and place indicated in the facts charged.

However, according to the health and evidence as to whether the defendant's above act impairs the utility of the victim's vehicle, i.e., defects arising from the victim's vehicle (the 8,9 page of the investigation record), and whether the defendant's act was caused by the defendant's act, the defendant's act was 2 or less strings without the strings. The victim left the vehicle without immediately checking the condition of the vehicle or stopping the victim, even if the defendant did not report his act of driving the vehicle in the vehicle at the time of the case, even if he did not immediately check the situation of the vehicle or stop the victim's act. The defendant left the vehicle to repair the vehicle's vehicle in the next day to repair the vehicle's vehicle that had already been broken before the occurrence of the accident. The defendant did not discover any more than the other time.