A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 10, 2013, at around 20:20, the Defendant was found to have been off the victim C, who was in his house at the ELa Park in the Yaeong-Eup, Songjin-gu, Songjin-gu, Song-si, with “Yama, Sama, Sama, Sama, and Pama,” and visited the victim, who was suffering from the victim’s entry, from the knife Saish dominus.

Therefore, between the victims and the escape, the victim saw the fear of learning, wearing the victim's scamer, and the victim saw the victim's 20,000 won of the market price owned by the victim and the victim's scam cell phone 1 pam of the victim's 90,000 won of the market price in the same scam.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused (including the C substitute part);

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged articles;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of selective fine for punishment (the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, the circumstances leading to the crime in this case, the degree of damage, etc.);

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant did not take the part of the victim, but rather took part in it. At the time, the Defendant did not have the intention of larceny.

In this Court, C, the victim, stated in this Court that young male in the park of this case had a clear memory, but the fact that the Defendant spawns his spath of his spath on the day of this case does not correctly memory under the influence of alcohol.

However, C was investigated by the police on the following day after the occurrence of this case and the following day, and C was found to be a Si fee to be borne by the defendant, and he was exempted from the doer, and he again brought it to find it.