If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On November 13, 2012, at least 23:30, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s C driver’s license in front of the victim’s car running from the subway station to the street subway station in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seoul, at around 23:30, the road in front of the subway station; (b) obstructed the victim’s driver’s license in front of the road; and (c) without any justifiable reason, cut off the victim’s above carnet in front of the victim’s car owned by the victim C by drinking it, and damaged the repair cost so that the repair cost would come up; (d) continuously moving the road to the opposite line; and (e) continuously moving the road to the opposite line from the subway station to the opposite subway station; and (e) cut off the front of the victim’s E driver’s 3rd car, which was proceeding to the opposite subway station, without any justifiable reason, and (e) cut off the part of the road to repair it to 380 wheel 380 wheel.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E legal statement of the witness E;

1. Protocol of examination of witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement of each police statement of E and C;

1. E statements;

112 Report details, photographs of damaged vehicles C and E, and written estimate of vehicles E of victims, shall be applied;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

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

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant's assertion that there is no damage to the vehicle owned by the victim C, and even though there is only one package of the package of the vehicle owned by the victim E, it is inevitable for the victim E to drive the vehicle to proceed in the direction of the defendant, and there is no supporting way to walk the back wheels of the vehicle owned by the victim E.

2. All together with the above-mentioned evidence.