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

On April 14, 2016, at the executive conference of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council of Officers of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Apartment Management Office, the Defendant removed CCTV camera installed in the ceiling by an influence method to prevent other people from viewing the process of performing duties related to the selection of the apartment management company, along with three representatives of other buildings of the above apartment, and thereby, damaged the above CCTV camera, which is a joint ownership of the above apartment resident, so that the repair cost can be seen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the CCTV photographs of the damage to property (CCTV), the suspect image immediately preceding the damage to property (CCTV) and CCTV data with a video recording on the face of the suspect’s damage to property;

1. Article 36 of the applicable law on criminal facts, Article 366 of the Criminal Act of the choice of a fine [the crime of destroying and damaging property], the selection of a fine [the crime of destroying and damaging property] constitutes cases where the act of destroying and damaging property makes the goods in a state in which the specific role of the goods cannot be performed temporarily as well as where the goods cannot be performed as their original purpose (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7219 Decided December 22, 2006]. According to each of the above evidence, each of the above evidence reveals that the above CCTV was set to the ceiling of the CCTV, which was attached to the conference room, was set up only once the above camera was set to a line attached to the ceiling, and the above camera's screen was no longer recorded. According to the above facts, the above facts found that the above CCTV was in a state in which it could not play a specific role in the above camera's temporary or its goods. Thus, it is judged that the above CCTV was damaged and that the above camera did not affect the above defendants's assertion that it did not affect the above.

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;