If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On January 13, 2020, the Defendant: (a) around 20:16, at the front glass of the Victim C’s commercial building D, a building owned by the Victim C in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, caused a defect of about 4 meters in length in the straight line in the direction of street, thereby damaging the unpaid property in the repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Results of the defendant's partial legal statement recycling and viewing of CDs by this court;

1. The police statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning internal investigation reports (on-site CCTVs and presumption of suspected persons) and CCTV images-cape photographs;

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. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant carried tools that could damage the front glass of the above store at the time of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant was not in a situation that could damage the glass, and there was no motive to prevent the Defendant from committing the instant crime. Even if the Defendant damaged the glass as stated in the instant facts charged, the Defendant was a total of two lines of vessels located in the direction of the instant glass, and even if the Defendant damaged the glass as stated in the instant facts charged, the prosecutor did not specify what was the Defendant, and thus, did not specify what was the Defendant, and thus, the prosecution procedure of the instant case becomes invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act, and thus, the judgment dismissing the prosecution should be sentenced.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, i.e., the Defendant initially made a police statement, i.e., a tool against the steel board on the right side of the instant machine, and the Gu was also aware of it in a situation where it was protruding a hole in the said machine.