A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 24, 2017, the Defendant, at around 04:00, damaged the victim’s own cell phone in a glass room on the ground that E, a related person E, who had a relation at the house of the victim D of Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Seo-gu building C, 301, flive drinking alcohol, flively and late, went back, and damaged the victim’s cell phone by visiting the toilet door and visiting the head, and 400,000 won in total of the repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A written opinion, the place of the offender, and the arrest report of the case;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing victim and on-site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the damage to a leased house is an act which does not have the intention of damage or which can be socially accepted. Thus, since the object of the crime of damage is owned by others, the object of the crime of damage is limited to that owned by others, and thus, it does not constitute one's own property. However, it does not constitute one's own property regardless of whether it is occupied by others or under the possession of others (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2290 delivered on December 26, 1984). It does not go against the social rules to damage part of the leased house.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.