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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant who damaged property: (a) opened a door at Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 1906 Dong 901, 1906 Dong 901, and (b) opened a door to the victim D (n, 49 years old), and then removed a victim’s fish located on the front door of the door at the place of the door, and damaged the victim’s fish, which was installed on the front door of the door of the said place, and thereby, damaged the repair cost in excess of KRW 270,00.

2. The Defendant infringed upon a residence at the same time and place as above, and opened a gate and enter a ward after opening the gate, and intrudes on the said victim’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D’s legal statement (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the above victim’s statement has no overall credibility. Thus, the part concerning the relation with the former male and female person’s oral statement is found to have a tendency to reduce or conceal the victim as much as possible. However, at least with respect to the part directly related to the sex of the crime of destroying property and the crime of intrusion upon residence of this case, the contents of the statement are consistent from the investigative agency to this court, and are specific, specific, and life.

Therefore, the credibility of the victim's statement in this part can be sufficiently recognized.

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs which destroy slopings;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for negligence;

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. Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Around the time of damage to the fishery village of this case, the Defendant damaged the fishery village by mistake that the injured person was threatened by the former male-gu, thereby damaging the victim. At the time, the victim’s own contact was made.