If the defendant does not pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

The defendant and the victim D(the age of 29) were under divorce litigation due to the legal marital relationship.

1. Damage to property;

A. On February 27, 2016, the Defendant, at around 19:00 on February 27, 2016, went against the Defendant’s residence, and went against the Defendant’s Cheongju-gu E Apartment-gu 204dong 3305, the Defendant, who had a horse dispute with the victim, and was in the wall with one content equivalent to KRW 65,00,000 at the market price, which is an object owned by the victim, and damaged the Defendant’s right of KRW 20,000 at his/her hand.

B. At around 13:00 on March 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened an inner door in an amount equivalent to 300,000 won at the market price of the victim’s name, who is the owner of the house, to drinking and salivate, on the ground that the victim entered the port of the above 13:00 on the ground that the victim got out of the dispute with himself/herself; and (b) destroyed the victim’s name, which is the owner of the house, by cutting off the inner door door of a 300,000 won market price, which is the owner of the victim; and (c) destroyed the victim’s name by cutting off

2. Around 05:00 on July 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) engaged in a dispute with the victim at a port of the above-mentioned 1-A; (b) threatened the victim’s head by gathering the wind flag, which is a dangerous object; (c) sealed the victim’s head; and (d) sealed the wall in the bend part of the victim’s head; and (e) sealed the wall in the bend part of the victim’s head with the bend; (e) sealed the wall in the form of cremation, hick, which is a dangerous object, cut down the part of the victim’s right to the right with the bend part of the dangerous object; and (e) committed assault, such as hacking the victim’s bridge part by hand and hacking the hack by hand.

Summary of Evidence

Damage photographs of the police's statement protocol on the defendant's partial statement D [the defendant and his defense counsel are the goods owned by the defendant, so it is not the crime of damage to property].

One of the arguments is that when the defendant is in marital relationship with the victim, the defendant purchased the above goods and used them for the family joint living, so the defendant and the victim's shared goods should be considered as the co-owned goods).