Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 12, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (compact) at the District Court of the Republic of Korea on one year and four months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 15, 2017.

On April 1, 2017, the Defendant became a Si reserve and became a horse fighting in the Government Prison C around 11:00, on the ground that the Defendant “a difference between the victim D and the candidate who supports each other while dialogueing the presidential election.”

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the property equivalent to KRW 480,00 in the market price by gathering the safety of the victim, which was placed on the table of the method of collecting water by hand, with his hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Complaints and photographs of damaged articles;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to confirm and report the result thereof;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Act for the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the issue of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in relation to the provisional payment order was not destroyed by leaving the victim's safety as stated in the facts charged of this case because the defendant had already been in a state of the victim's security.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, which were duly adopted and investigated by this Court, are ① the victim, from the investigative agency to the court, “A dispute has occurred with the Defendant, and the Defendant was frightened on the other hand.”

A relatively concrete and consistent statement is made to the effect that the Defendant had been employed and there was a defect, but has not been abandoned. ② According to the images of damaged pictures, the Defendant is the victim two to three times.