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

At around 17:29 on December 26, 2019, the Defendant: (a) laid down the bricks (a 25 cm, vertical 10 cm), which are dangerous objects, in the glass door of the above real estate, and damaged the glass door owned by the victim so that the repair cost can be increased.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 369 (1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing order under Article 334(1) include: (a) the recognition of the facts charged in the instant case; (b) the victim does not want to punish the Defendant; and (c) the fact that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine is favorable to the Defendant.

However, considering that the crime of this case was committed while the defendant disputed with the victim, and was destroyed by breaking up the door of the business site of the victim's operation, and that the nature of the crime was poor in light of the instrument used for the crime, the circumstances and contents of the crime, and that the defendant was sentenced to a fine due to the same kind of violence, it is deemed that the punishment of the summary order against the defendant is not excessive.

In addition, in comprehensive consideration of the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc. and all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and pleadings of this case, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.