Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is constructing a new house in the vicinity of the water zone of the city of the city of the mother and the family of the defendant.

On April 15, 2014, at around 15:30, the Defendants cut one lock using the cutting machine to pass through the construction vehicle with the aim of using three bicycle locks installed at the side of the management office located in Yongsan-si D, D, and then jointly destroyed and damaged the goods of 15,000 won or more at the market price by leaving the same lock as the cut lock in the back crum.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. E statements;

1. Application of statutes of the report on the scene of damage, investigation report (CCTV analysis and the attachment of video CDs), investigation report (survey of witnesses), decision-making in lieu of conciliation, and building permit;

1. Relevant Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the Defendants who choose to commit the crime;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendants under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and their defense counsel asserted that, despite the agreement between the Defendants and the D Apartment Housing Council and F on allowing access to the construction vehicles through the said iron gate, the said council of occupants’ representatives and F interfered with the entry of the construction vehicle against the agreement between the said council of occupants’ representatives and F, and accordingly, the Defendants’ delay in the construction of the said vehicle led to the instant case, and thus, the act in the

According to the above evidence, the defendants passed through the construction vehicle in the process of constructing a new house in the vicinity of the D apartment, and the defendants and the residents of the D apartment, the construction vehicle is the site managed by F rather than D apartment.