If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

1. The Defendant who damaged property is clearly stated in the facts charged in 2017 as 2016, but it is apparent that it is a clerical error in the year 2017.

1. around 08:40, Seongdong-gu Seoul apartment 201, the apartment management office of Seongdong-gu Seoul apartment 201, removed and destroyed it without permission, for the reason that the name of the Crisma, the market value of which is equivalent to 500,000 won, which was established at the front of the Dong, was not removed even after the end of the year, thereby making it unusable again.

2. The Defendant, at the same time as Paragraph 1, removed the catma try at a place, such as Paragraph 1, at the same time as that of Paragraph 1. In this case, the Defendant: (a) removed the victim D (68 years old) who is a security guard at the place; (b) removed the victim by hand on his/her hand on the ground that the victim D (68 years old) was removed; and (c) laid down the victim’s 4th left side of the abandonment requiring treatment for a period of seven days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as standing photographs, and a written diagnosis of injury;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 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 concerning the confinement in a workhouse (the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not destroy a cryma string; hereinafter the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not destroy a cryma;

One of the arguments is that according to the evidence duly submitted and examined in this court, the above damage can be fully recognized.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel argued that the defendant's injury to D constitutes a legitimate defense. However, the defendant's act of smuggling was first caused by the defendant's damage of catma's lighting, which can be expected to some extent as the defendant. The defendant's act in this case can not be evaluated as a legitimate defense by disregarding the legitimacy and method of the purpose.