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

On August 1, 2015, at around 20:30 on 20:0, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the utility of KRW 100,000,00 by pushing the victim E (66 tax, female) and plastic chairs in front of the time, who were managed as a result of automatic brying in the 2 soup room of D 2 floors located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A statement in a written estimate;

1. Application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the site and victim photographs;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order provides that he/she did not destroy plastic chairs at the time, and denies the charge by asserting that even if it was damaged, the Defendant’s intention to commit the crime cannot be recognized because it was merely destroyed in the process of exceeding the limit of his/her intention on the waterway and thus, was destroyed.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by each evidence of the ruling, i.e., ① the witness E, after hearing the sound in excess of the chair in this court, confirmed that the two chairs were damaged, and the present one is discarded, and the one is being used with the tape.

According to the video of the scene and the victim’s photograph, it was confirmed that the part destroyed by one person, and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that two persons were destroyed at the time, and ② the Defendant denies the fact that he was destroyed on the sole ground that he was not able to view the damaged person’s strike, and thus, the overall credibility of the Defendant’s statement is high.

(3) The victim made a statement to the effect that it was difficult to see that the Defendant was damaged due to the fact that he did not see the face of the Defendant from the investigative agency to the present court, but he did not see the face of the Defendant, as such, from other customers (the legal statement, the victim made).