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

On 19:50 on 28, 2016, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victim, such as a mergator, table table, table table, table table, water reservoir, remote area, and telecom, which were located above the victim C (42) in the Gumi-si B, Gumi-si, 2016, due to the personnel expenses of the victim C (42 tax) who fluor E and fluor in drinking in the D cafeteria operated by the Defendant. On 28, 2016, the Defendant raised a dispute over the food fluor, etc. on the ground that the fluor, etc. on the ground that the fluor was drinking, and caused the collapse.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes 1, 2, to the site photographs of the case

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, punishment more than a summary order shall be mitigated by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the degree of damage to the instant property on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime.