Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Criminal facts

1. On May 12, 2017, at around 07:50, the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s property “D” No. 5, in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, where the Victim B (24) works for the Victim B (24) on May 12, 2017, on the ground that the victim does not sit and drink on the Defendant’s side, and the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s property by destroying four confluences of the market price, which is the victim’s possession on the table.

2. Special intimidation Defendant refers to “Ikkhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn

"........................................

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site situations, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the point of special intimidation of the choice of a fine: Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with heavier special intimidation);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not impose a liability for intimidation and breaking the main body’s beevor by cutting it as a dangerous object for sentencing, which leads to the reason for sentencing of the provisional payment order. However, in light of the fact that the ordinary defendant appears to have caused this case while he was receiving treatment for a mental disease such as depression, etc., the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant from the beginning, the fact that the defendant did not want to do so, and that the defendant reflects the defendant’s wrongness.