Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, around 13:00 on September 20, 2017, damaged the victim’s property owned by the victim in total amount of KRW 1.220,00,000 in the market price by extracting agricultural products, such as 1 gin, 1 gin tree, 1 gin tree, 1 gin tree, gin tree, rin tree, gin tree, gin tree, and ginine 3 gin tree, which are planted at the same time, from the end of the residence of the victim C in the East Sea, around 20,00.

around June 23, 2019, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant land to H for use from June 15, 2019 to June 14, 202, 201; (b) around Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si (Gu address: E, land category, and size: 453 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”); (c) the victim F, the landowner of the instant land, and the victim G leased the instant land to H for use; (d) the victims installed a wooden fence and its water to prevent the victims from leasing the instant land to H.

Accordingly, the Defendant set up a fence, etc. on the instant land, which is the property of the victims, thereby impairing its utility.

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 1293"

1. Each police statement made by the witness C, I, J, and K in each of their respective statutory statements, C, J, and K in each of the police statements;

1. A summary map, a certified copy of cadastral map, and the general building ledger;

1. Details of damaged trees, measurement map of the current status of field photographs, a certified copy of cadastral map, building ledger, certificate of closed register, certificate of right to registration of damaged land, a certified copy of the register;

1. The judgment of the first instance court in 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trees”) by the Defendant’s possession of the victim’s residence photo investigation report (Attachment of photo on the scene of damage), and the judgment of the court of first instance in 2013Ga, which became final and conclusive at the boundary of 20973Ga, denies the charges to the effect that the Defendant was planted on the land owned by the Defendant’s mother and was not the victim’s property, but the Defendant did not intend to commit a crime of damage to property.

According to evidence, ① the net M purchased the land B in the East Sea with the defendant's external tide denying network N around 1969.