If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

1. On July 30, 2013, at around 21:00, the Defendant damaged the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door in which Dopo-si C is located, while under the influence of alcohol, so that the Defendant was able to walk the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door of the front door

2. The Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case on the 112 report by pushing the F’s body in hand and cutting the F’s left hand in a manner that the F’s head was faced with the floor, in a case where the F, who was dispatched to the scene after having received a report from 112 on the 1st floor of the above Bara and sent to the scene, was trying to make the Defendant correct the disturbance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, D and G;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of field photographs, damage photographs statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

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

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 the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. 현관문을 두들겼으나 손괴된 부분이 없으므로 손괴죄가 성립하지 않는다는 주장에 대한 판단 D이 법정에서 ‘현관문을 사용하는데 지장은 없어 수리를 하지 않았다’고 진술하기는 하나, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 피고인이 발로 여러번 ‘쿵쿵’ 소리가 날 정도로 판시 현관문을 찬 점, ② 사진상 판시 현관문에 발로 찬 흔적이 보이는 점, ③ D이 경찰 및 법정에서 ‘피고인이 발로 찬 부분을 자세히 보면 약간 들어가거나 살짝 찌그러졌다’는 취지로 일관되게 진술하고 있는 점 등에...