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

The defendant is a person who works as a part-time worker in Kimpo-si B where he is located in Kimpo-si.

1. On August 7, 2017, around 19:00, the victim F (57 tax , south) used a taxi operated by the victim FF (57 tax , south) from C (DM) to E from the taxi stop to E, and subsequently, the victim’s son who was able to walked the victim’s bridge during the city expenses due to the problem of the fee, was committed by assaulting the victim’s son who took handphones.

2. The Defendant damaged the property by leaving the cell phone, which was cited by the victim’s hand on the ground, such as the date and time, at the place, as described in paragraph (1) and paragraph (1), fall into the ground, thereby damaging the de facto Handphone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing mobile phones;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destruction) and the selection of each fine for a crime;

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

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are acknowledged and contradictory to the Defendant’s mistake. However, in full view of the fact that there is no agreement with the victim, the fact that there was a single record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the background of the crime, the amount of damage, and the circumstances after the crime, the amount of fine under the summary order does not seem to be excessive. As such, the sentence is