Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On January 14, 2019, at around 21:19, the Defendant damaged the property amounting to KRW 712,00,00 of the cost of pulse repair by using the front door from the front door to rear door, and the rear part of the passenger car (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”) owned by the victim C (Ra) who was parked in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the front resident preferential parking zone (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the victim's written statement;

1. Photographs of damaged parts;

1. CCTV images and analysis video CDs;

1. Application of two copies of a written estimate of general repair costs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that “The Defendant at the time of the instant case only found the defects on the damaged vehicle and confirmed them in the front trial, and there is no fact of damaging the said vehicle.”

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, i.e., (i) the Defendant 2 secondsed on CCTV near the site of this case and re-exploited into India. Considering that the Defendant was at night, the Defendant’s appearance does not seem to be an act of examining the damaged vehicle’s damaged part, but rather appears to be a net damage of the damaged vehicle, and (ii) the damaged vehicle was destroyed by a flicked object from the front door to the rear door and the rear door, and the damaged vehicle was destroyed by a flicked object. This form of damage was not sealed, and therefore, the Defendant was not at the time of the investigation, even if it appears that the situation was clearly recorded if the damaged vehicle was approaching the damaged vehicle to verify the defects in the vehicle as alleged in this Court.