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

On January 16, 2018, at around 02:15, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol within “D” operated by the victim C, Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon without any justifiable reason, destroyed 2,00,00 won of the market price of the victim’s possession, 2.4 million won of the market price, 80,000 won of the market price, and 2,000,000 won of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months for special larceny, etc. from the Daejeon District Court’s Branch Branch on April 17, 2015; and (b) on July 31, 2016, the execution of the sentence should be completed; and (c) it is not good to commit the instant crime even though it has been committed for three years.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant commits the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, if the defendant selects imprisonment with prison labor, he/she commits the crime of this case. This is deemed to be too harsh in light of the aforementioned circumstances, a fine shall be selected by taking into account the following factors: Provided, That the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on January 16, 2018, the Defendant argued with a female-friendly G when drinking in front of the “F convenience store” located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, about 02:00, on the ground that he tried to breathize the breath of the above G, and the Defendant was prevented from drinking the breath of the victim H (22 tax) and I (25 tax) who was a victim H (22 tax) and the breath of the breath of the instant G, and the victim I who continued to do so.