The sentence against the accused shall be 200,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2013. 2. 7. 22:25경 서울 송파구 C에 있는 D학원에서, 현재 이혼소송 중으로 별거 중에 있는 처인 피해자 E에게 “명절인데 시댁에 안 내려 가느냐 ”라고 물었으나 대답을 하지 않았다는 이유로, 책상 위에 있던 플라스틱 연필통을 집어서 바닥에 1회 던져 플라스틱 통을 깨지고 하고 그 속에 담겨진 볼펜과 칼을 부러지게 하였다.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the plastic smoke and the pentle and the pentle contained in the victim's possession, thereby harming its utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of the E’s written statement, each police statement to E, and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing damaged articles and photographs;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel convicted of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. At the time, the Defendant asserted that the instant facts charged cannot be acknowledged, such as the Defendant’s studio on the floor, which was on the floor by leaving the studio, did not damage goods, and that there was no criminal intent for damage. However, it is difficult to reject the credibility of E’s statement in light of the consistency of the statement from the day of the instant case to the day of this court’s ruling and the probability of the contents of the statement, etc. based on the consistency of the statement and the contents of the statement. It is inevitable to recognize the fact that the Defendant was released on the floor by putting

(B) As alleged by the counsel, even if the damaged items are jointly owned by the Defendant and the victim, it is clear that they are treated as owned by another person in criminal law). Accordingly, the Defendant is guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Although the defendant denies the crime, there is a circumstance that the relationship with the victim is not completely recovered, the same type of punishment as the order is taken into account the fact that the case is very minor.