Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 3, 2013, around 05:15, the Defendant damaged the victim C’s D office located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, on the ground that the victim was sleeped by a new wall, and that the market price owned by the victim was 50,000 won.

2. The Defendant committed assault against the victim at the same time and place as the above Paragraph 1, and “a person who has obstructed his/her business” from the victim, sees the horses, and knife the victim’s neck four times in his/her hands.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act constitutes the instant crime by obstructing the Defendant’s water surface for several months, since the victim’s human resources, office workers, and workers, who were late at night, interfered with the Defendant’s new wall or night. Thus, the Defendant’s act is a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.

However, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant’s act of damaging the victim’s property or assaulting the victim for a certain period of time without taking measures to recover the damage in accordance with the legal procedure, without taking into account the motive thereof, cannot be deemed as an act that does not contravene social norms by failing to have the reasonableness of the means or method, urgency and supplement, even if considered.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant commits the crime of this case even though he had a record of punishment twice as a crime of the same kind.