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

On March 3, 2019, at around 10:20 on March 3, 2019, the defendant, at the defendant's house located in the Suwon-si B apartment C, was stored as the victim D (the 37 years of age) who is the spouse of the defendant and the living expenses, and the victim tried to file a report on the 112 mobile phone, or one mobile phone of the amount of 600,000 won, which is the market price owned by the victim, was stored on the seeds floor and damaged.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Summary statement of D;

1. Mobile phone pictures (including photographs of damage) destroyed from among the on-site photographs (the upper end of 24 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on mobile phone repair estimates;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that the victim was in dispute with the victim about the issue of payment of living expenses, and in order to prevent the defect that the defendant was to report to the police on the ground that the victim was the body of the defendant.

During that process, the victim prices the cos of the defendant with the cell phone while benefiting the defendant's hand, and the defendant got off the victim's cell phone in order to avoid risks in a sudden shock, and the cell phone was faced with the wall of the proxy seat.

As a result, the Defendant used the victim’s attack passively to defend the victim’s attack, and took the victim’s cell phone, which was the target of the attack, and the mobile phone was destroyed by the wall during that process, so the Defendant did not have the intent of damage. Furthermore, the Defendant’s act as such constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules and thus, the illegality is excluded.

2. The judgment of this Court has been duly adopted and examined by this Court.