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

1. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant: D’D operated by the Victim C, which was dead in the past located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; the Defendant ordered alcohol, but was not known to the victim, destroyed by 3 parts of the market price, which was the victim’s possession before the chemical or hop on the ground that he did not know of the victim; and damaged the Defendant’s property damage and damaged its utility by cutting off a standing signboard.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s main business by force by avoiding disturbances for about five minutes, such as the date, time, place, etc. described in paragraph (1) by setting up three flowers on the floor, breaking up the signboard, and breaking up the signboard, thereby obstructing the victim’s main business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CDs including damaged photographs and cellular phone images recorded;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of a fine for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention in the workhouse is that the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on November 24, 2016 due to the crime of aiding and abetting the offender, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 24, 2017, and committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, and the degree of damage to property or business interference is not less easily. The Defendant assaulted the victim on two occasions on September 8, 2016 and January 6, 2017, but continued to inflict harm on the victim, such as that the victim did not want to be punished, and is subject to each disposition of prosecution, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On November 8, 2017, after the conclusion of pleadings, the defendant did not want to be punished against the defendant by mutual agreement with the victim, and the defendant is above.