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

1. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 17:40 on April 2, 2014, the damage and damage of property: (b) at the “E restaurant operated by the victim D in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (c) at the “E restaurant operated by the victim D; (d) at the employee F, and (e) took a bath to the said F; and (e) at the time he took a bath, the Defendant destroyed the glass of the restaurant entrance, the victim’s market value of which is equivalent to KRW 230,00,000, which was the victim.

2. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant, at around 17:45, destroyed glass in front of the restaurant as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) and assaulted the victim F, who is an employee of the above restaurant, on the part of the victim, on the ground that he escaped, and assaulted the victim’s left arms one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. An interrogation protocol of F by prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. On-site access reports, and photographs and estimates;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (including attached documents);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, 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. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability, or mental disorder, due to Compilation mental disorder.

According to the above evidence, although it is recognized that the defendant suffered from Compilation mental disorder before the crime was committed, it does not seem that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime in this case.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

The defendant of the reason for sentencing has already been punished several times for a similar crime, and repeated crime is repeated.