At around 15:30 on November 2, 2018, the Defendant reported the e-mail car operated by the victim D at the front of the Young-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, with no particular reason, and destroyed the repair cost by driving the e-mail car from his own vehicle without any specific reason, putting the e-mail in which the e-mail was in operation by the victim into the victim’s e-mail car, and putting the e-mail into the victim’s e-mail car. The Defendant damaged the e-mail car by driving the e-mail car on the roadside.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Reports on internal investigation (including the statement made by the victim), reports on internal investigation (Listening to the statement made by the victim), reports on internal investigation (Listening to the statement made by the licensed real estate agent’s telephone), investigation reports (STV verification), and investigation reports (verification of the amount received by the victim);

1. The photograph related to the case (the defendant denies the intention of causing property damage, but according to the on-site video, etc., which is the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact of destroying the victim's vehicle as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court, and dolusence of the fact that the above vehicle will be damaged. And the defendant alleged that the defendant was in a state of mental disability due to stimulative disorder, etc. at the time of the instant case. Thus, according to the evidence submitted by the defendant to this court and evidence duly adopted and examined, the fact that the defendant received hospitalized treatment due to symptoms, such as stimulative disorder, etc. after the instant case can be acknowledged. However, in light of the process, method, and the circumstance before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the defendant had a state where the ability or ability to make a decision on changing things was lacking at the time of committing the crime. Accordingly, each of the above arguments cannot

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;