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

1. On May 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 01:00 on both weeks, the Defendant destroyed the property in which approximately KRW 800,000 of the repair cost would be equal to the repair cost by cutting off the E-to-land owned by the victim D (29 tax) by hand, without any reason, while drunking the E-to-land owned by the victim D (29 tax) on the front of the C cafeteria located in Yangju-si.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as indicated in the above paragraph 1, flabed the victim D’s trawing that he reported the damage to property to the police, and used the victim’s flabing with drinking flab, and flab with flabing flab by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A criminal conciliation decision;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the 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. It is recognized that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Provisional Payment Order shows an attitude against the defendant when committing a crime.

However, in this case, without any reason, the defendant's liability for the crime was not less weak and did not completely recover from damage due to the case where the defendant damaged the victim's urbane without any reason and assaulted the victim.

In addition, the punishment shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details of the instant crime and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the age, sex, environment, record of the crime, etc.