A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:00 on December 21, 2015, the Defendant damaged the utility of the digital fishing village in the market by having the key business operator replace the digital fishing village in the market by using the gap in which the family members of the victim do not have the victim D, who was in a separate relationship before 1811, Dong 701, Dong 701.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of the draftD, records concerning the examination of suspects, and investigation reports (case of damage amount);

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

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 and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. Since the digital fishing village of this case is a co-ownership of the defendant and the victim, and the defendant has replaced the quality with a high-quality locking device, the digital fishing village of this case has impaired the utility of the digital fishing village of this case or had an intention to damage the defendant.

The defendant asserts that his act constitutes a justifiable act, since he entered a residence jointly residing with the victim in order to meet his children.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the victim made a statement at the investigative agency to the effect that “the victim prepared a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant as a person who was a person who was a person who was a person who was a person who was a person who was a person who was a victim, from the end of June 2015.” The Defendant made a statement at the investigative agency of India to the effect that “the victim was living in Jeju-do from the point of July 2015 to November 2015 that it would not be good for him due to verbal abuse of the victim, etc.,” and the Defendant and the victim were living in Jeju-do at the time of the instant case.