Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 13, 2018, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property damage by putting the victim at the residence of the victim C (Inn, 52 years of age) located in Namwon-si, Namwon-si on the ground that the victim is aware of the Defendant’s female relationship, thereby breaking one copy of the free windows equivalent to KRW 50,00 in the market price of the victim’s ownership, and then cutting off the said spack wire at the market price of the victim’s ownership by putting the television spacked wire installed on the customer inside and outside of the bank, and destroying the victim’s property.

2. At the time and place mentioned in Paragraph 1, the Defendant assaulted the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s left side part of his/her loss, while he/she was crypted with the victim for the said reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Investigation report (related photographs of destruction and damage of property), investigation report (related to the attachment of glass windows, studs, and television spackers);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the selection of fines) that apply to the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

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

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant only made a verbal dispute with the victim at the time and place as indicated in the judgment, but did not assault the victim. At the time, the Defendant took the door by force, and there was no fact that the Defendant shouldered the glass or damaged the electric wires of the spacker as indicated in the judgment with the intent to commit a crime of causing property damage.

2. The following circumstances, which could be revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, are objective evidence, such as photographs, etc. of skackers, etc., the damaged objects of the crime of causing property damage.