Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the employee of Gangnam-gu Seoul Company D in Seoul, and the above company was established for the purpose of the Magyeong, Boan Tren and Contren Manufacturing and wholesale and retail manufacturing.

From July 18, 2011 to December 31, 2013, E, the representative director of the defendant company, jointly operated H in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with H, and thereafter, did not recontract the joint operation, but is under civil and criminal litigation due to a dispute of management, etc. while there is no liquidation relationship.

The Defendant, around 06:00 on May 11, 2014, established in the above H around 06:00, the Defendant and the Victim I, are F’s spouse, and a person who entered into a contract for joint management of the instant store with E and fulfilled the duty of investment pursuant thereto, and the instant signboard is jointly owned by E and I. Therefore, this part of the facts charged is modified and recognized as above.

It was destroyed by arbitrarily removing one front signboard (a) equivalent to KRW 2,500,000 in the market price of KRW 2,50,000, and one protruding signboard (a) equivalent to KRW 2,700,000 in the market price (240 cm in length x 30 cm in length) at will.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Special contract, lease contract, written consent to sublease or sublease;

1. Once internal investigation (explosion photographs) is attached to a report on internal investigation (explosion photographs) [the defendant's assertion that the signboard removed by the defendant is owned by E because the agreement between E and I constitutes an anonymous association under the Commercial Act and the defendant removed the signboard in accordance with E's instruction, and thus the signboard in this case does not constitute another's property. However, considering that the contents of the agreement on the Dong business in this case, during which the agreement on the operation of the Dong business in this case was entered into with E and E, it is difficult to view the agreement between E and I as an anonymous association under the Commercial Act, and thus,

1. Criminal facts;