If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On May 21, 2017, the Defendant, at around 00:03, damaged the repair cost portion by using a log, which was possessed in front of the convenience store C, Gangwon-si, Gangwon-si, without any particular reason, for drinking alcohol, using a log in front of the convenience store C, which was possessed by the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not release the table.

2. According to the evidence examined earlier, the Defendant did not put the table table until the date of the clerical error in the convenience store, and the Defendant was working at the convenience store from the time when he had been working at the convenience store.

Until the Defendant listens to sound outside of D and took place outside of the convenience store, it can be recognized that, by considering these facts, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are sufficiently attributable to the facts constituting a crime that the Defendant destroyed the Rab lab because, out of D’s convenience store, the Defendant was seated on the lower part of D’s table and her hand when she viewed the Defendant. At the time, D’s confirmation of the lab, the lab remains, and the labed lab, and the labed lab, and the labed lab, and the labed labed lab. In full view of these facts, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant commits the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime and denies the crime, etc.