Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 24, 2015, the Defendant destroyed the property owned by the said association, where it is difficult to know the amount of money, such as leaving the gate of the office, spathy, spathy, and spathy by leaving the spath of the office, spathy, and spathy in the rebuilding office of the 10:30 on the ground that it was difficult for the Defendant to provide guidance on the payment of relocation expenses at the 10:30 on the rebuilding office of the 3rd apartment.

2. In the same time, at the same time, as mentioned in the above paragraph 1, the Defendant was able to take a bath to the general affairs of the said association at a certain place, and the victim’s right hand hand hand hand over (the age of 33) who followed the disturbance, and the victim was in need of approximately two weeks’ treatment on the part of the victim, on a two-time basis. In full, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim’s fluorum base.

3. The Defendant, at the same time, at a place as set forth in the foregoing paragraph 1, expressed that “the instant victim E is friend, friend friend friend, friend friend friend friend friend, friend friend friend,” and friend friend friend, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s performance of the work, such as the victim’s reconstruction association relocation counseling, etc., by force for about 20 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of damage to property), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and the choice of fines, respectively, for the crime;

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. The Defendant’s argument on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is based on the following: (a) the Defendant did not take the victim’s grandchildren and did not debris; and (b) the victim did not put the Defendant’s arms first, which constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense; and (c) the Defendant’s inquiry is concerned with business obstruction.