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

1. Around 04:00 on December 22, 2015, the Defendant damaged the victim’s market value on the part of the Defendant, such as: (a) while moving a taxi operated by the victim C (56) in the front and front street of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (56) to a taxi; (b) while drunkly opening a tact card terminal installed on the container in the container so that the wires connected to the said device are cut off.

2. Around 04:30 on the same day as the preceding paragraph, the Defendant damaged goods used by public offices by the police officers on the ground that the police officers were arrested at the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Central Police Station, Seoul, as a current offender and was under investigation at the new police station located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Western Police Station, on the ground that he did not take his horse.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of photographs of damaged articles);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of damage to property), and the choice of fines for each crime;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment is that the defendant agreed with the victim C, and that the damage was recovered by compensating for the damaged public goods.

However, the crime of this case is destroyed by damage to property, and is arrested as a current criminal and under police investigation, again breaking the table of a public office, which is a public object, by drinking again, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

On May 22, 2014, the Defendant was punished as a crime of obstructing and injuring official duties.

The above circumstances, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and the results thereof, are considered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.