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

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

Punishment of the crime

A. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) entered a lecture room in which a private person of the Cultural Center was undergoing a course of study on the ground that the victim D was located in the 2nd floor culture center of “C,” located in the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor cultural center, was not subject to telephone; and (b) was trying to deduct the key of the victim from the key of the vehicle; and (c) interfered with the victim’s lectures by using force, such as by taking away the victim’s cell phone, throwing away the victim’s cell phone, throwing away the victim’s cell phone and throw away it out of the lecture room.

B. The Defendant, like the above “A”, destroyed the damage from the victim’s 80,000 won of the market price to cut off his LGG G3 mobile phone, and then destroyed the said mobile phone into the water tank of the first floor male toilet of the E building in light of light lighting on the roadside.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (exploitating the scene of damage to property and attaching photographs);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

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 sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the following circumstances, and the conditions of all the sentencing recorded in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex and environment, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the sentence identical to the order shall be determined.

In this Court, the Defendant recognized all the facts charged of this case.

While stating “A victim’s mobile phone was damaged, there was no intention to damage the victim’s mobile phone.”

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above investigation report, the water tank in which the victim's cell phone was discovered is very difficult to keep the cell phone in water.