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

1. On January 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16:50, the victim C in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (“D”) was under the influence of alcohol in front of “D” operated by the victim C; (b) the Defendant destroyed three tea teas in a size equivalent to KRW 150,00; (c) three tea teas in a size equivalent to KRW 200,000; (d) four teas in a size equivalent to KRW 200,000 in the market price; and (e) ED signboards in an amount equivalent to KRW 30,00 in a size equivalent to KRW 25,00 in the market price.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, destroyed the victim’s goods at the time and place, and as seen above, was prevented from being damaged by an unspecified number of unspecified persons, whether the victim “Woo Hak Hak Hak Hak Hak Hak Hak Hak h

The victim openly insultingd the victim by referring to the bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of farmland.

3. The Defendant: (a) committed assault to the victim at the time and place set forth in paragraph (2) of this Article; (b) brought the victim into a teahouse store; (c) brought the victim with his/her intent to enter the tea house; and (d) assaulted the victim with his/her hand on three occasions by walking the victim’s left side of the bridge.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A letter of arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (related to attaching a detailed statement of damage and a diagnosis report);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment against the crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that he was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes. However, in full view of all the circumstances, such as the motive and circumstance of each of the instant crimes recognized by the aforementioned evidence, and the circumstances before and after the instant crimes, the Defendant.