When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On September 10, 2013, at around 22:35, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the instant taxi 11 in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the taxi platform, on the ground that the victim C (the 40-year-old age) who is a driver of B taxi for business purpose was able to take the first place for other customers without carrying himself/herself; (b) caused the instant taxi to block the front of the instant taxi; and (c) caused the damage on the market price installed on the upper part of the front left of the front left of the taxi by drinking it on a drinking ground.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the victim and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on damaged photographs;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The fact that the defendant had been sentenced six times to a fine for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (four times the same criminal act, two times the same criminal act) is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of damage and is divided in depth, that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, that the degree of damage is minor, and that there is no criminal conviction other than the previous criminal conviction, is favorable to the defendant.

Here, the method and result of the instant crime, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the date and time as indicated in the facts constituting the crime as to the above damage; and (b) at the same place, the Defendant assaulted the victim C (the 40-year-old) who is a driver of a taxi for business use B, by taking advantage of the fact that the victim was satisfing that he did not have been aboard and was able to take the other customers first; and (c) on the ground that the victim resisted and prevented himself

2. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and is in accordance with Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.