Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against each of the assaults is dismissed.

1. On August 1, 2015, the Defendant damaged property: (a) around 05:45, the “E” operated by the victim D in Jeju Island; (b) on the ground that, while talking with the victim about the operation of his/her main point, the victim took her own possession of tobacco, he/she sawd with the victim, thereby impairing its utility by overshing the amount of KRW 22,50 won at the 15th market price of the glass World Cup owned by the victim and displayed by the consignee.

2. On August 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was arrested by a police officer upon receipt of a report at the same place as Paragraph (1) on August 1, 2015; (b) was investigated as a suspect in the Jeju Police Station-type office and office located in Jeju Jeju Police Station-type around 14:24 on the same day; and (c) was investigated as a suspect without authority for the purpose of exercising; (d) was stated as “G” in the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant F; and (e) was submitted to F without knowledge of the circumstances.

Accordingly, the defendant forged another person's signature and used a forged signature.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (specific of the amount damaged by property);

1. The self-examination protocol (G);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning damaged photographs and CCTV afforestation;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property, the choice of imprisonment), Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of signing a private signature), Article 239 (2) and Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of exercising the signature of the above investigation);

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the assertion merely follows the demand of the police officer to supplement the omitted doping if the Defendant stated the name of “G”, which is the shape of the suspect interrogation protocol, on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant had intentionally committed an intentional act under the signature of the police officer.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the location where the Defendant stated the name of “G” is not “the part concerning the person who made a statement” in the suspect interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 35 pages of evidence record).