Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The victim B is a holder of the "Creing" business, and the victim D and the victim E are police officers who were dispatched to the above place after receiving a report of 112.

1. On December 20, 2017, the Defendant damaged the property by gathering one computer monitors installed in the victim B’s carculter under the influence of alcohol from 8 points in the “Csing room” located in the “Csing 01:15 on December 20, 2017, and then destroying the market value.

2. On December 20, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s singing room business from around 01:20 to 02:30 of the same day, such as gathering stamp at the same time and place as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), assaulting customers and victims B with drinking, and taking a flower and computer monitor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Letters of arrest of flagrant offenders, B, D, and E written statements, records of police preparation of E, photographs, and criminal complaints;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

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. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the provisional payment order are as follows: (a) the accused recognizes all the criminal facts of this case and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victim; (c) the Defendant, as a recipient of basic living environment, appears to have failed to comply with the due process for impeachment; and (d) the Defendant appears to have failed to meet the health conditions.

On the other hand, however, the crime of this case where the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim and interfered with the victim's business by continuously avoiding disturbance is considered in light of the contents and methods of the crime.