A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 18, 2006, the Defendant purchased four lots of land, such as F, G, H, and I, from the mother of the victim D on November 18, 2006. At the time, the Defendant was unable to dispose of the land since he did not purchase one unit of housing of 78.05 square meters in the above G located in the said G, which was residing in the said E at the time, and attempted to purchase the said housing from the victim, but the price adjustment was not made. However, the said housing was registered on the building ledger as it exists in F, unlike the actual building, and the victim was able to arbitrarily remove the said housing by advertising that the said housing could not be properly managed by residing in the United States.

On April 8, 2015, the Defendant mobilized the parts of the removal company (JointJ)J around April 8, 2015 and stated in the facts charged in the market value of the victim located in the above G as the market value of KRW 100,000,000, but there is no objective data to recognize such fact.

The victim's property was damaged by removing one unit of the above house.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the statement that the house was removed);

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. The police statement of K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the record, such as a certified copy of each real estate register, land cadastre, cadastral map, general building register, content certification, building register, writing-satellite photograph, house photograph, power of attorney, real estate sales contract, removed house photograph, etc.;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 366 of the relevant criminal facts and Article 366 of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of imprisonment

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the housing of this case is owned by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), and the defendant removed with L’s delegation, so the crime of causing property damage is not established or there was no intention to commit the crime.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, the Defendant is the instant house.