The Defendant had prepared in advance, without any justifiable reason, on August 1, 2015, in the state that the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to a stimulative disorder, at around 11:50 on August 1, 2015, on the roads in front of the 1287 at the memorial stimulshion-ro 1287.

PVC pipe (150 cm in length, 5 cm in diameter) boomed by hand on the road and operated by the victim C.

D The part on the back-up of the vehicle was unloaded once by the above PVC pipe, and approximately KRW 80,000 of the repair cost was destroyed to the extent that the repair cost was exceeded. The part on the back-up part of the FVC pipe operated by the victim E was continuously unloaded by the victim E several times, and approximately KRW 1,133,600 of the repair cost was damaged to the extent that it was damaged to the extent that the repair cost was exceeded. The part on the front and front of the HV car operated by the victim G was unloaded to the above PVC pipe, and the parts on the front part of the JV car driver’s seat operated by the victim I were cut to the above PVC pipe, and approximately KRW 200,000 of the repair cost was damaged to the extent that the repair cost was damaged to the extent that the repair cost was damaged to the extent that the repair cost was exceeded to the extent that it was considerably 82,60,604 won.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the automobile operated by the victims and the urbane.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each statement prepared by K, I, C, and E;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, estimates, each investigation report, and accompanying documents;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate mental and physical drugs;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the aggravated concurrent crimes is a so-called “influence” crime for an unspecified person, and the crime of this case is not considerably good, and the defendant is the same as this case.