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

The defendant is the apartment resident of B, and the victim C (64) is the head of the above apartment management office.

On September 2, 2017, around 09:45, the Defendant found drinking in the Seongbuk-gu Seoul apartment management office, and told “the head of the management office” as “the head of the management office, anywhere in the management office,” and “the head of the management office has left the office to attend the lawsuit between the resident and the representative of the Dong by leaving the office hours.”

“...” Doesced

In addition, "I am together with the bath theory".

The defendant has taken a leave in the court room.

“If the head of the management office of a monthly day goes to work,” the victim who solicits him/her to return to the Republic of Korea, “Ne If he/she goes to work, she shall be her husband of the Dong.”

“,” and “whether the resident and the representative of the Dong have ever attended the trial.”

In addition, the victim's apartment management management was hindered by bringing about about 20 minutes to avoid disturbance, preventing confirmation of the result of the waterproof construction work of apartment and delivery of approval account, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Each statement of D and C;

1. Application of a copy of the leave system;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the act of a justifiable act of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a justifiable act, since the defendant and his defense counsel resisted against the escape of the victim who is a security guard as a resident.

However, the victim submitted a leave of absence to the head of the apartment management office as the head of the apartment management office B, and it is recognized that the victim was absent from the workplace.

In the absence of any evidence to determine a person, the Defendant continued to take a bath and duplicate a disturbance, and the Defendant committed the crime in the judgment, even though the Defendant submitted a leave program and asked the victim to attend the trial as above.