Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) destroyed property damage: (b) around 19:00, on the ground that he did not pay money for working and drinking in order to receive wages not received from the subcontractor; (c) left the F glass owned by the Victim (State) D; (d) damaged one copy of the F glass; and (e) damaged the tin wall owned by the Victim (State)G owned by the Victim (State) who continued to be located adjacent to the stairs of 3rd floors; and (e) damaged the tin wall by taking the tin wall owned by the Victim (State) G as its head.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, and place mentioned in Paragraph 1, assaulted the victim H(the age of 45)’s breath, which prevents the Defendant, on the same grounds as described in Paragraph 1, and assaulted the victims when they walked 4-5 times with the victim I(the age of 50)’s breath, and walked the victim I(the age of 50) once again.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Investigation report on the case to be tried, such as assault;

1. Application of three copies of suspect photographs, destructive photographs, photographs of each victim, and photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the selection of fines) concerning criminal facts;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not have any fact of damaging property as in the judgment of the defendant, and the act of Paragraph (2) in the judgment of the court below is a passive resistance against the victims, which constitutes a justifiable act. However, according to each of the above evidence, the facts that the defendant damaged the FF glass 1 and the tin wall at the time, and the fact that the defendant abused the victims as in the judgment of the defendant as in paragraph (2) can be acknowledged, as the victims suffered damage to the property under the influence of alcohol and escape from disturbance.