The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Land in Newanan-gun C, D, E, and F is owned by the defendant 1/3, victim G, etc. with the remainder of 2/3 shares.

On June 4, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily transferred rice plants to the entire land of this case without the consent of the victims in light of 14:00, and H, who was delegated with cultivation by the victims, was unable to do so at all.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of others' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of H in the suspect examination protocol against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (limited to the verification of the party who is the owner of a 1/3 farmland cultivated by the person under investigation);

1. The pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Penalty) [The defendant's defense counsel, since the defendant's defense counsel is the co-owner of the above land, the above land cannot be viewed as another's property. The defendant's transferring of rice to the above land cannot be deemed as impairing the utility of property by merely using it as the original purpose of the land.

However, in the case between co-owners, the above land constitutes another's property in relation to the victims, who are other co-owners, and the crime of destroying property that affects the utility of the crime of destroying property shall be interpreted not only to make it difficult to use the original purpose of use of the goods, but also to make it impossible to use it temporarily, as well as to harm the utility (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1345 delivered on July 28, 192, etc.). However, the defendant transferred rice to all the above land so that the victims cannot use the above land temporarily.

Therefore, the defendant's act of transferring rice can only be seen as an act detrimental to the utility of the above land.

Therefore, the defense counsel's above assertion should not be accepted.