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

1. On August 7, 2013, at around 22:30 on August 7, 2013, the Defendant damaged the market price by destroying a building fluorri and a part of a wall glass, a mother of the her mother, who was the victim D, who was under the influence of alcohol in a ward C in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and became an economic problem.

2. The Defendant received 112 reports at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties, such as spiting and spiting the victim’s bridge by walking the victim’s bridge at one time, where the e box F (ma, South and 41 years old), who was called out after the Defendant’s receipt of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. Protocol of examination of the witnessF;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of reports on the use of police gear, on-site photographs, and photographs of victim F damaged parts of the statute;

1. Relevant Articles 366 and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s negligence would damage the glass window, the Defendant’s intent to destroy the glass window may be sufficiently recognized by taking account of the developments leading up to the instant case, degree of damage to the glass window, etc., known by each evidence

On the other hand, the witness D made a clear statement to the effect that he has broken up two glass windows by drinking them at the investigative agency, but he reversed the statement to the effect that the Defendant was written and the glass should be left to the same as the Defendant was lost.

However, the police officer called the site after receiving the report of D at the time, the relationship between D and the defendant, and the statement of D.