Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 18:15 on February 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was at the C Service Center located in Seopopo-si B, Seopo-si; (b) and (c) caused damage to the Defendant, on the ground that a counselor, who had provided telephone counseling, was influored, to walk the racker door four times, thereby damaging the repair cost of KRW 3,548,00.

The Defendant continued to d’s balp, a staff member of the place, and d’s balpted the floor, and obstructed the operation of the service center of the staff E, etc. by force, etc., where 10 minutes of disturbance, such as a falp and a falp, falping the Defendant’s d’s d’s balp.

2. On February 20, 2017, the Defendant’s damage to public documents was at the team office of Seogpo Police Station F Team of Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, 27 prudented around Seopo-si, 2017, and was investigated in relation to the foregoing paragraph 1, and then printed out by the police officer in charge, and inspected the examination protocol of the suspect who was under investigation conducted by the police officer in charge, “It is why the victims would not make an investigation;

any protocol prepared by the court for the examination of a suspect shall be null and void.

“The” and the protocol of interrogation of suspect was teared by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the protocol of interrogation of suspect, which is a document used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of E and D preparation;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the details of attaching photographs to the suspect examination protocol destroyed by the person under investigation, and the photograph of damaged articles and estimates);

1. Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of damage to public documents), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are all taken into account the various sentencing conditions specified in the argument of the instant case, but in particular, the circumstances favorable to take into account the following circumstances into account: the property is destroyed and damaged.