If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

On December 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) caused three copies of the standard penalty in an amount equivalent to KRW 120,000 of the market price of the victim’s own owned by the Defendant; (b) three copies of the general penalty in an amount equivalent to KRW 267,00 of the market price; and (c) one copy of the general penalty in an amount equivalent to KRW 267,000 of the market price of the victim’s own owned by the Defendant at P.M. on December 26, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of statutes on the site and photographs of damaged articles;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A judgment on the assertion of the accused and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) shall be made without any prior permission from the investigative agency to the prosecution agency to bring the accused a punishment, etc...” In light of the witness E’s legal statement and the attitude of testimony in this court, it is not particularly suspected that the credibility thereof is particularly high even if comprehensive consideration of the witness E’s legal statement

As above, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the witness D’s legal statement, etc., and the following circumstances: (i) the legal statement of E made to the effect that D would bring the punishment, etc. to the defendant under the influence of D while drinking, but the alcohol would be unable to be memory in the state of his/her physical appearance is based on the trend; and (ii) E would like to talk that D would bring him/her to the effect that D would bring him/her to his/her physical appearance if D would bring him/her to his/her physical appearance on April 2014; however, this is different from that of December 6, 2014 alleged by the defendant; and (iii) the defendant would have immediately disposed of it to another person without using it for the purpose of double sprinking.