If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

At around 20:30 on January 2, 2014, the Defendant became aware of the fact that he did not cause a opening while counseling with respect to the opening of a mobile phone in Songpa-gu Seoul.

이에 피고인은 피해자 E 소유의 책상 위 시가불상의 유리를 바닥에 집어던져 깨뜨리고, 매장 내에 있던 각 시가불상의 LG모니터 20인치 3개, 팩스형 복합기 1개, 카드 조회기 1개, SCX4828 복합기 2개, 엡손컬러프린터 1개, 칼라복합기 1개, 일반전화 3개, 키보드 3개, 책상 유리 1개, 중고 아이폰4S 1개, 갤럭시 노트3 휴대폰 1개, LG G2 휴대폰 2개, 홈폰세트 1개, 아이패드2 1개를 손으로 집어 던지고 발로 밟아 깨뜨렸다.

The defendant continued to cut off the facsimile line in the city on a virtual basis.

In this respect, the defendant damaged the property of the victim of the market defect.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the recycling of CD images;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The main point of the argument was that D employees did not open the cell phone, carried the Defendant on a fright basis, and rejected the Defendant’s request to report to the police, etc. The Defendant abused the Defendant. The Defendant destroyed the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the defense and committed this case

2. The above argument is rejected, since the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below are sufficiently recognized and the defendant's act cannot be seen as self-defense.