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

The defendant is between the victim C (math, 75 years old) and the neighbor.

On August 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 09:30 on August 13, 2017, the Defendant: (b) destroyed and damaged rainwater amounting to one million won in the market value (5m, 1.2m, width) of the victim’s housing located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu; (c) beyond his own building; and (d) damaged the Defendant’s utility on the ground that rainwater fell from rainwater.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports (related to a written estimate attached), and investigation reporting;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the argument that the illegality of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is dismissed by the victim of the instant rainwater.

Even if there was a promise, it was not observed for three years, and there was a lot of rainwater from the end of the Defendant’s building caused damages to the end of the Defendant’s building by breaking the boundary of the Defendant’s building, and thus, a large amount of rainwater from the end of the instant rainwater was repeated, and the removal was made after informing the Defendant of the direct removal if the rainwater was not implemented, and then the removal was made. Thus, it is asserted to the effect that it was not illegal because it constitutes an implied consent or inevitable act to avoid the present danger of the Defendant’s property.

However, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as well as the statement of the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s implied consent or constructive consent was acknowledged in the situation where the dispute between the defendant and the victim continues to exist, and at the time of the instant case, there was an infringement of the legal interests of the defendant or danger.

Even at home, the means by which the defendant took is appropriate.