If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On December 14, 2012, at around 00:32, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the business of the victim C (here, 47 years of age)’s husband D; and (b) destroyed the victim’s house of the second floor of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; (c) sought the victim’s house of the second floor; and (d) destroyed the victim’s family members by putting in hand the front door door door door (ro 25cm, 20cm, e.g., e., e., e., e., the victim’s door door 25cm) where the victim’s family members are locked, or by breaking it.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A written arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Investigation reports;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Penalty concerning the Crime. Article 366 (Selection of Fine)

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

1. As to the defendant's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant asserts that at the time of the instant case, he was able to open the door door with his hand, but he did not have to take the door door. However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant himself stated that he was able to open the door door within the presence of the door door, and that he was able to open the door door within the presence of the door door, ② the victim was able to hear the sound of the defendant, and the victim was humped with the view of the second to the first floor, and the police officer sent to the victim's report at the time was dumped with the door door and dumped with the door door, and thus, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.