Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On December 14, 2017, at around 22:15, the Defendant destroyed the victim’s property by destroying the 30,000 won in total of the market price of the victim’s house and destroying the victim’s residence by putting a complaint with respect to the baring of the dog the victim’s key into the house, and putting about 20,000 square meters of the stone, which is a dangerous object at the place, with a stone (in diameter of about 20,00 square meters), and putting about the door door of the victim’s house glass, and putting about 20,000 won in aggregate of the market price of the Ma, exceeding 4,00 won in total of the market price of the Ma.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to the field;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence), Articles 369(1), 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destruction of special property), and the choice of fines, respectively, for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s compensation for the cost of glass damaged by the victim; (b) the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment; (c) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment since 2004; and (d) the Defendant’s age, environment; and (c) the conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as indicated in the Disposition.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. On December 14, 2017, at around 22:15, the Defendant: (a) committed assault by breathing the victim’s flaps in the victim D (61 tax)’s residence located in Jeju City, as indicated in its reasoning; and (b) breathing the victim’s flaps by hand; and (c) assaulting the victim’s flaps.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act as an offense falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, the victim expressed his wish not to punish the defendant on July 6, 2018, which was after the prosecution of this case.