If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Around 01:40 on September 5, 2014, the Defendant found that the victim E (the 60-year-old) did not pay a monthly wage for the pushed-down at the “D” accommodation located in Thai-si, Thai-si, and destroyed one cell phone of the amount of damage caused by cutting the cell phone by Handphone while cutting the cell phone used by the victim and then cutting the cell phone again, while driving the cell phone, the Defendant destroyed the cell phone of the amount of damage caused by cutting the cell phone into the floor by cutting the cell phone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of each police suspect interrogation protocol (including substitute part) to Defendant and E

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, since the victim's cell phone was destroyed by his/her act of violence, etc. during night.

According to the aforementioned evidence, it is recognized that the defendant confirmed whether the victim's cell phone was recorded by deducting the victim's cell phone, and that the defendant was damaged by leaving his cell phone in the process of finding the victim's cell phone again. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant did not have the intention of damaging the victim. In light of the series of acts, the defendant did not have the reasonableness, urgency, and supplement of the means or method, and it does not constitute legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.