Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is a person who operates the rental business in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim D (n, 29 years of age) is a lessee who resides in the above studio 101 from March 1, 2014.

1. 피고인은 2014. 6. 12. 10:30경 위 C원룸 101호에서, 피해자가 6월분 월세를 내지 않았다는 이유로 망치를 들고 찾아가 101호 현관문에 설치된 디지털 도어락을 수회 내리치고, 깜짝 놀란 피해자가 출입문을 열자 다시 망치로 디지털 도어락의 출입문 안쪽 부분을 내리쳐, 피해자 소유인 140,000원 상당의 도어락 1개를 부수어 손괴하였다.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place set forth in the above paragraph 1, and at the time and place, when the victim taken the part of the Defendant’s set-off of the Defendant’s set-off of the cell phone, and assaulted the victim at one time by taking the part of the Defendant’s set-off of the cell phone in the process of cutting off the cell phone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part concerning D statements made to the prosecution of the defendant in the suspect examination protocol;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding D;

1. Each on-site photograph (the defendant and his defense counsel did not damage the digital fishing or assault the victim as stated in the judgment of the defendant, and they also returned to the extent of two digital fishing, which constitutes a justifiable act as an act to urge the victim to pay monthly royalties. However, in full view of the above evidence, the fact that the victim damaged the digital fishing and assaulted as recorded in the judgment of the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, and such an act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not go against social norms. Accordingly, the above argument is rejected).

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;