If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

1. On September 6, 2012, the Defendant suffered property damage, around 12:40, and on September 6, 2012, the Defendant sought to receive drinking money, such as drinking value, from the victim D (the age of 61) who is the Defendant of the Defendant C, but did not meet himself/herself, the Defendant saw the bricks for construction in the vicinity of the entrance, and caused damage to the property equivalent to KRW 400,00 at the market price by 3-4 loss from the main entrance door and the studs.

2. At around 14:50 on September 17, 2012, the Defendant interfered with business affairs, the victim F (57 years of age) who is the owner of a multi-facel business in the Eda room, reported the Defendant’s interference with business affairs and was punished by the Defendant, and the said victim “scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to D or F

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection 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. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, probation, community service for 200 hours, and 40 hours of education in June of imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business on August 24, 2012 from the Changwon District Court’s territorial branch branch of the Seoul District Court, and the Defendant again interfered with business by finding the F, the victim of the crime of interference with business at the time of the failure to provide guidance for 1 month from the sentence.

In addition, even in 2011, the defendant has been punished twice by a fine for property damage in this court.

However, all of the victims of each of the crimes of this case agreed with the victims, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant shall be considered as the grounds for sentencing favorable to the defendant, and all of the other reasons for sentencing, such as the age and the family system.