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

[2016 Highest 317] On May 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) set up a mobile line in the above table in order to prevent the Defendant from running the business of selling beverages at his/her own discretion at the tenniss located adjacent to the second entrances of the “C Branch” building in Ansan-si, Annyang-si; (b) thereby, the Defendant destroyed the said mobile line owned by the victim company by cutting down the 쇠s by using metal cutting machines around May 11, 2015, which were installed adjacent to the second entrances of the building; and (c) in order to prevent the Defendant’s business, the victim company D (hereinafter “victim company”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes to the image that the defendant inflicts damage on chains; and

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel on the assertion of justifiable act under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserted that the defendant's act in the judgment of the court below is a legitimate act in which the victim company's act committed self-help pursuant to the former part of Article 209(2) of the Civil Act with respect to the deprivation of defendant's possession, and which does not violate social rules. However, in light of the following factors: the defendant's test expansion construction process and contents which can be recognized by the evidence duly examined by the court; the situation where the victim company set up a mobile line fixed to the above test; and the situation before and after the defendant's decision, the defendant's act constitutes self-help or does not violate social rules.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

In the light of the background and contents of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the punishment is less severe.