Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of the land C, and the victim D purchased the land E, which is the adjoining land around September 2013, and the two sites are adjacent to the F land, which is the river site owned by the victim of the king.

After the above victim purchased the above E land around September 2013, the defendant had been suffering from the conflict with the victim D due to the problem of securing the passage roads with respect to the installation of the sidewalk and the tables on the F land which is a neighboring river site.

In the meantime, the above victim D set up a 12-meter radius at the boundary of the river site and the land owned by the defendant around March 2017 and set up a 12-meter volume at the boundary of the land owned by the defendant, and throw away in accordance with the brush, the defendant, around 13:00 on May 23, 2017, removed the brush owned by the victim D and damaged the property equivalent to the market value of the non-party value at the market price by extracting the brug trees owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Submission of a complaint, a report on each investigation (in relation to the estimation of damage to a victim, examination of the volume of damage), and data on the defendant's lawsuit;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for 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 on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is the fact that the defendant removed the neck owned by the victim D and extracted the sloping trees owned by the victim's king. However, the above neck and sloping trees were illegally established on the land owned by the victim's sking to obstruct the passage of the defendant. Thus, even if the defendant removed it, it does not go against the victim's sking will, and constitutes a justifiable act.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is considered as a whole.