Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the relationship between the victim C (V, 46) and the married couple.

1. A special intimidation: (a) on May 31, 2017, the Defendant deemed that the victim was out of his/her place of residence in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do; (b) and (c) on the part of the victim, he/she was in a dispute with the victim with the victim, thereby threatening the victim to “influence of death” and “influence of death.”

2. The Defendant damaged property, at the date and time stated in paragraph 1, and at the place, the market price, which was owned by the victim for sale on the Internet, was the victim’s packing box for men in the unsurged market, was collected, and damaged.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Side photographs, such as the site and photographs of damaged parts, suspects, etc.;

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

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 284, 283(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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

1. As to the issue of the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s packaging box for male use at the time of the instant case was destroyed by sealed, but there was no fact of threatening the victim, and that the above male wall packing box was owned by the Defendant, and thus, the crime of property damage is not established.

In other words, the following circumstances recognized by this Court comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., ① the victim refers to the purport that, from the investigative agency to the court of this Court, the victim “in the course of having a dispute with the defendant in an inside and outside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the investigative agency, it is close to the defendant’s appearance, appearance, face, etc., and is “efford.g.