Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for property damage at the Daejeon District Court on May 16, 2012, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 16, 2012, and on November 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for three months in the same court on November 22, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On August 26, 2014, at around 12:50, the Defendant: (a) destroyed and damaged the glass of the guards room in front of the Daejeon Tae-gu Daejeon metropolitan apartment 103 Dong-dong, Daejeon, which had been punished by destroying and damaging the glass of the guards room for a few years before being drunk; and (b) destroyed and damaged the Defendant’s complaint by placing the brue bottle, which was placed in the glass of the guards room at the entrance of the guards room; and (c) 36,000 won of the market price managed by the head of the apartment management office D.

2. The Defendant, at around 13:00 on the same day, destroyed a book glass equivalent to 48,000 won in the market price managed by the victim D, by lowering the glass from the office located therein for the said reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A criminal investigation report (ex post facto concurrent crimes confirmation), application of judgment-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 366 (Selection of Fine)

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

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

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has multiple criminal records related to the sentencing reasons, and it is necessary to punish a person again during the same repeated crime period. However, even though the damage was completely recovered, the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish, the damage was minor, and the circumstances to be considered in light of the circumstances leading to the crime are heavy, and the defendant's age, age, and strong reflective attitude at the same time as the final judgment rendered in the judgment, shall be punished by a fine only once, taking into account equity with the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time.