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

1. Around May 4, 2017, the Defendant who damaged special property was the husband of the Defendant, who is the husband of the Defendant in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, in the Dispute Resolution, and caused the Defendant’s mobile phone search for the Defendant’s mobile phone with the victim, and the Defendant was in dispute with the victim, thereby damaging the Defendant’s 32,00 won in total by making the knife of the entrance entrance and the knife of the entrance and the knife of the entrance of the entrance of the said company, which is a dangerous thing that the victim was in dispute with the victim, at a decline of 29 cm in length.

2. A property damage Defendant destroyed the mobile phone owned by the victim while having a dispute with the said victim, as described in paragraph 1 above, at the time and around the day specified in paragraph 1 above, so that the repair cost equivalent to KRW 210,000 at the market price is destroyed by putting the cell phone owned by the victim at the cement floor of the parking lot.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. Reports on internal investigation (on-site pictures, such as damaged articles and criminal tools);

1. Application of each written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions regarding criminal facts, Articles 369 and 366 of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment (special damage), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property) and the selection of fines (the defense counsel is the husband and wife and the injured party is a couple and it is doubtful that the crime of damage is established. However, it is reasonable to view that the property of another person, which is the object of the crime of damage to property, includes not only the sole ownership of another person but also the joint ownership of another person).

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. Crimes committed contingent upon the end of the home page of reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment, and the punishment is determined as ordered by comprehensively taking account of the data on sentencing revealed in the records, such as the fact that a divorce lawsuit is pending in a prolonged period, the fact that a mistake is recognized, and other records on the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc.