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

At around 10:00 on April 8, 2012, the Defendant: (a) stated that “a fine of one million won has been imposed due to spout and width,” on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won on the part of the victim D, which was operated by the victim D in front of the B market in the East Sea at the same time; and (b) stated that “a fine of one million won has been imposed due to spout, width,” the Defendant could not sell the 100 mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-party 100,000 won of the market value on the front of the 1st page.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the utility of the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of police statements concerning D, application of Acts and subordinate statutes related to damaged photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the order of provisional payment is that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the offender during the period of repeated crime, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime on the ground that he was sentenced to a fine by neglecting the victim’s happiness, thereby leaving the victim back his failure to commit the crime.

Although it is agreed with the victim, the authenticity of the agreement is also doubtful.

However, in consideration of the fact that the amount of damage is relatively minor, the victim did not directly commit violence against the victim, and the damage to property, the fine should be selected, but the amount of fine was determined in consideration of the above circumstances of the crime.