Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an automated installer, and the victim C is the owner of the Dabudio in Busan Metropolitan City.

Around December 5, 2013, the Defendant was established under a contract with the actual owner of the above building E to install an automatic door door of the first floor of the above building, but was not paid 870,000 won out of the construction cost.

On January 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) installed a number locked on the said automatic text upon the request of E for the addition; and (b) set up that the said automatic text does not automatically close from January 20, 2014 in preparation for cases where the balance, etc. is not received.

On January 20, 2014, the Defendant did not cancel the payment of the balance, which led to the failure to automatically close the above automatic text.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by the defendant in part of the first public trial records;

1. Each of the statements made by the witness F and E in this Court, and the witness G in part of this Court;

1. Entry of an investigation report prepared by the police (the head office and telephone conversation with the H);

1. The defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of the defense counsel's defense of the on-site photograph (the on-site photograph No. 14 of the evidence record) is not a crime because the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of the crime of this case is conducted

One of the arguments, there is no evidence to prove that the victim consented, so the above argument cannot be accepted.

The defendant's defense counsel does not commit the crime of this case because it is illegal because it does not violate the social rules and is a high-land book for not removing the construction cost.

One of the arguments is that if the automatic door of the entrance of the 1st floor of the building is not operated properly, the risk of causing various criminal acts is reasonable, the above argument also cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;