Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. Withdrawal of the Defendant: (a) around 03:40 on November 30, 2014; (b) at the home of the victim D, who was the former wife of the Defendant, the victim demanded several times to leave the victim’s house; (c) but, without good cause, the victim’s evictions without good cause.

The Gu did not comply with the Gu.

2. The Defendant causing property damage, at around 11:45 on the same day as the above 11:45 on the ground that the victim was not opening the house door at the parking lot, the Defendant destroyed 4 free will equivalent to the market price of KRW 1.20,000,000, and caused the damage to its utility on the ground that the victim did not open the house door.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. A report on internal accidents (investigation into the other party of the shooting range);

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 319(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of causing property damage heavier than punishment);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The victim D of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act stated in the initial investigative agency that “self-reliance was divorced with the Defendant on September 2013, and the Defendant refused to take care of his house only until the Defendant sought money from him and received money from him, but the Defendant arbitrarily copied his key, and the Defendant was in his own house at will between his own house and his own house on the day of the instant case, and even if she demanded the Defendant to leave her house several times after she returned home, she did not comply with the Defendant’s demand to leave her house while she did not go home.” However, in this court, she made a statement that she seems to correspond to the Defendant’s defense.