Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On July 25, 2015, the Defendant, at around 12:00, damaged the victim D(39 tax) house located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, on the ground that it was caused by covering the victim's house roof with a tent to block the string in order to repair works, and that rainwater is sand on the defendant's house inside and outside of the house, and damaged the victim's house so that the victim's tent covered on the victim's house can arbitrarily walk up with a repair cost of approximately KRW 600,000,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs on damage scenes;

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 defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act claim that the defendant and the victim's house are close to each other, and the victim covered the defendant's house with a tent up to the defendant's house by installing a vinyl tent on his house's roof and covering it with a ceiling on the defendant's house roof. Thus, if there are many rains, the above tent is used as rainwater at all times due to the above tent, and the high garriss from the defendant's house to the house through the defendant's house, and the defendant just walk the above tent without any inevitable reason to prevent it, and eventually, the defendant's act constitutes an emergency escape and thus the illegality is denied.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, there was a situation where the defendant's house was damaged due to the above tent at the time of the instant case, i.e., the present danger situation, which is the premise of emergency escape.

It cannot be said that the damage of this case was an appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order to prevent damage, or that it was the method to cause the largest minor damage to the victim.

As such, the defendant cannot be seen as having been.