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

On April 3, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor at Seoul High Court for property damage, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2015.

At around 16:45 on August 21, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the business operation of the service center of the victim C (the 49 years old) who is the service center B, by force, on the ground that the 3rd floor of Samsung Ggaltho-si, Incheon, Samsung C, the service center's employees continued to remove and replace the 3 mobile phone galtho-si, which it leased to the third floor of Samsung C, and had a complaint to Pyeongtaek Samsung electronic, and the number of female employees working at the service center in the reception stand, among the employees assigned to the service center, 3 female employees working in the reception platform, such as gathering mobile phone distribution, cell phone, golf loans, and taking a bath to the employees who control them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: The previous convictions, results of confirmation, results of case search, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of two copies of judgment;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and the former part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

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

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

According to the above evidence, although the defendant was found to have drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of various circumstances such as the background, method, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the crime of this case, and thus, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.