Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 08:20 on June 21, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim D(20 years of age) on the street of “C” in front of the main point of “C” in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, on the ground that the victim D(here 20 years of age) gives and receives text messages with another male, on the floor of his hand, by making the victim’s head once, once per week, and once per half.

2. The Defendant damaged the victim’s property by making the victim’s cell phone size away from the floor of the cell phone owned by the victim, on the ground that the victim E prevented the Defendant from doing the above act at the time and place set forth in paragraph (1). The Defendant destroyed the victim’s property by making the victim’s cell phone size broken away from the floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of the police preparation D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the determination of damage photographs;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the choice of fines) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of causing property damage heavier than punishment);

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment did not constitute a non-discriminatory assault of several parts of the victim D’s body, and even if the victim E-owned cell phone was destroyed and damaged, the damage was not restored to the victim.

In particular, the fact that there is no serious effort for the recovery of damage with respect to the damaged property damage is also an unfavorable condition to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the facts charged as a substitute shall be considered in favor of the favorable circumstances, and the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the sentencing of the same case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.