If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At around 03:40 on December 11, 201, the Defendant destroyed another’s property that would be worth KRW 100,000 of the repairing cost, by walking the penter gate on the right side of the E-si operated by the victim D twice, and cutting off the penter with the right side of the E-si operated by the victim D, on the ground that the penter gate was flicked in front of Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, but the cab was flicked.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of statutes on taxi photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Penalty concerning the Crime. Article 366 (Selection of Fine)

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code of the Labor Station Detention at the Sea Station, the Defendant argued that the taxi driver and the franchising of the Defendant refused boarding and the franchising of the route was low, but the Defendant actually did not have contact the taxi, and thus, the Defendant did not damage the taxi. However, when the Defendant went through the time and place of the Defendant’s criminal facts consistently decided by the investigative agency up to this court, the victim D appears in the Defendant’s own initiative and flabing the flabing of the flabing, walking the flabing of the flabing and walking the flabing, and the flabing of the flabing, the Defendant refused boarding and leaving the flabing of the flabs, and in light of the fact that the statement seems to lack concrete and objective rationality and the witness’s testimony at this court, the Defendant’s assertion that the flabing of the victim could not be accepted.