Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 20:00 on June 5, 2015, the Defendant was found in the residence of the victim D (n, 60 years of age) located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the entrance was set up, and the victim was set up, and the entrance was installed at the house without the consent of the heat victim.

2. Damage to property;

A. At around 21:00 on June 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sought the above victim at the same place as the above “1.” and destroyed the entrance door so as to prevent the Defendant from becoming aware of the repair cost; (b) around 19:10 on June 19, 2015, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the above one copy of the glass window so that the Defendant could not know of the repair cost; (b) around 19:10 on June 19, 2015, the Defendant found the victim at the same place as the above “1.” as the above “2,” thereby impairing the utility of the automatic locking system of the entrance, such as: (a) searching for the victim; (b) making him/her not operating with the entrance number height; and (c) making him/her not operating with the repair cost of KRW 120,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Statement D in the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A photograph of damaged articles (including a receipt attached thereto);

1. A detailed statement on handling 112 reported cases and a statement on handling 112 reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. The purport of Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts, Article 319(1) of the choice of punishment (the point of intrusion, the selection of fines), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the defendant and his/her defense counsel), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the selection of fines) is that ① the defendant and his/her defense counsel, with respect to the point of intrusion upon his/her residence, opened an entrance door at the time, entered the victim's house with the consent of the victim by opening the entrance, ② there is no fact-finding between the victim's house and the house at each time as stated in the facts charged, as well as the glass window was broken from the time of the opening of the victim's office on April 3, 2015. The automatic locking device of the entrance door was a long product defect (the defendant's written statement

However, the foregoing time limit is limited.