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

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a neighbor who resides in a village such as a victim B(n, 82).

On September 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 12:40, at the dry field owned by the victim C, Youngcheon-si; (b) around 10, 2018, at around 12:40, the Defendant: (c) considered the Defendant’s statement by the police of the victim that he was suffering about 10 square meters in length (or about 50 m (or about 50 marc), and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, such as the victim’s photograph at the scene of damage, and the victim’s dry field was covered by plastic plastic products; and (d) it is evident that the Defendant was under the condition that he was under the victim’s dry field at the time when he was under the influence of the Defendant, and covered with the victim’s plastic products, and that is far more than the extent of damage compared to the waiver of 50 marc. as stated in the original facts charged, it was more favorable to the Defendant, thereby reducing the damage and damaging the Defendant without any changes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the victim does not want punishment; the extent of damage to the damaged part is very insignificant; the victim appears to have harvested the damaged part again in the part that was flicked in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state where he was in a state. In fact, the victim appears to have harvested the damaged part after he was in a state where he was in a state of flick, and the amount of fine determined by the summary order is too excessive when taking into account the circumstances such as the defendant's age and family relation, and thus, the amount of fine determined by the summary order is too excessive.