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

On September 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 21:16, at the restaurant of the name “C” located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon; (b) caused a dispute with the victim, and (c) caused the victim to have returned home, and (d) caused the victim’s vehicle parked in front of the restaurant, and (d) caused the victim’s vehicle parked in front of the restaurant, to have the front door of the wall cut up three times, string the door door, string the front door, and string the front door by hand, and damaged the Defendant so that the repair expense is unfasible; and (d) the victim E (the 45 years old) who is the substitute engineer in front of the restaurant, continued to have the front door.

“Along with the fact that the victim’s timber was satisfyed, Ga.” with the defect, the victim’s timber was satisfyed once by satisfy, and satisfying the bat, etc., by satching the back part of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. Filing reports, conducting investigations, and applying Acts and subordinate statutes governing site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Although the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was committed again despite the same kind of reason and many different types of records, it is not good for the victim to have committed a second offense, the sentencing data recorded in the record, such as the recognition of errors and the agreement with the victim of the damage, shall be determined as ordered by considering the sentencing data recorded in the record