Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is legally and legally married with the victim C, or is currently in separate state;

1. On August 4, 2014, around 00:30, the victim entered the E restaurant located in D when the victim operated, and removed the entrance door locking system of approximately KRW 80,000 in the market price and damaged the utility of the entrance by removing the goods from the door locking system of approximately KRW 80,000 in the city using the drick; and

2. On August 5, 2014, around 16:15, at the same place as above 16:15, the entrance was removed from and brought about about approximately KRW 80,000 of the market price in the same manner in order to impair the utility of the entrance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Photographs of damaged place and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of receipts;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37 and Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense of the claim of the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant's defense counsel did not recognize the illegality of his act because the restaurant of this case was ① the defendant's co-property and the victim's name was the victim's name, and the victim was unable to operate a restaurant due to traffic accident, and the defendant opened the locks to normalize it, which constitutes a justifiable act, and ② before the defendant opened the locks from the employee of the Legal Aid Corporation before the opening of the locks, it did not constitute a crime of opening the locks.

In a case where a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplement that there is no other means or method than that of the act, it shall be deemed a justifiable act.