Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 1.5 million won.

Where the above fine is not paid, one million won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 22, 2014, at around 23:50, the Defendant: (a) was unable to return home to the victim’s wife E, other than the instant case under the influence of alcohol; (b) the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, expressed the victim’s desire to “I am going to this son, but I am going to go to this son; (c) the victim’s breath was flad with the breath’s breath; and (d) the victim’s breath was flad with the breath’s breath, and flads were flad with the victim’s breath, and the victim was flad with the breath’s breath’s breath and flad with the victim’s breath’s breath’

2. The Defendant damaged property at the above time and place, on the ground that the victim was assaulted against the Defendant and was reported to the police with Samsung Galtho City 4 mobile phones owned by the Defendant, and caused the victim’s damage to the Defendant’s 89,800 won at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to attachment of medical certificates, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines (the same shall be applied and the fact that damage has not been recovered, etc. shall be taken into account, but partial reduction shall be made in consideration of the motive for the crime, childcare relationship with children, economic conditions

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

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the Defendant was merely an act to help the victim’s wife. However, according to each evidence of the judgment, the victim was the victim’s wife's wife who was under the influence of alcohol and went to the scene, and the Defendant was found to have continuously used violence against the victim even after the police officer was dispatched to the scene under the influence of alcohol.