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

On April 4, 2017, around 01:12, the Defendant: (a) removed a closure alarm device installed on the left side of the above entrance, and damaged the victim C’s house opening opening hours in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, on the following grounds: (b) around the victim’s house opening entrance in Yeonsu-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by cutting down damaged photographs and spathic images;

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

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

1. The Defendant’s crime of sentencing on the grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is deemed to have been committed on the ground of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s crime of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is under the influence of liquor at night, and thus, was destroyed by breaking the victim’s flag by opening a closure alarm, and thus, (b)

The defendant has a past record of five criminal punishment for violent crimes, and among them, he/she has reached three times the same criminal records.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant is recognized as committing a crime in this court and is against the law.

The extent of damage is relatively minor, and the alarm is re-established without compensation, so substantial property damage to the victim has not occurred.

Although there are five criminal records for the accused, four times among them are minor criminal records, and the criminal records for probation are about 10 years prior to the lapse of 2005.

The victim stated in an investigative agency that he/she does not want to be punished even though he/she complained of the unfolded appraisal (On the other hand, the defendant submitted a written agreement, but the defendant could not know the whereabouts of the victim, and the husband of the victim substituted the written agreement by his/her signature.

In light of the statement, it is added to the statement of the injured party.