2. Determination:

1. The Defendant asserted that, while recognizing the fact that he towing the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant, using the towing vehicle, towing the vehicle to the parking lot of the So-to-Eup Office located in the same Eup/Myeon in the front of the Macheon-si, the Defendant asserted that the damage of the instant vehicle was not caused as claimed by the complainant, and that the damage caused by the instant vehicle had already occurred prior to that time.

2. Determination as to whether the instant vehicle was damaged

A. The prosecutor examined the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as evidence proving the facts charged of the instant case, submitted the investigation report (such as a written estimate attached), written complaint, vehicle photograph, written estimate, suspect interrogation protocol, investigation report (F’s statement), and criminal records.

In addition, the complainant has been present and testified in this court.

(1) First, among the above evidence, “a criminal investigation report” cannot be directly proven that the criminal facts were attached to a written complaint and a written estimate submitted by the complainant. The contents of “a criminal investigation report” written by the judicial police officer against the defendant are merely the denial of the facts of the crime, and thus, neither evidence nor evidence of guilt is proven. “A criminal investigation report (F’s statement)” is irrelevant to this case, and “criminal records” are irrelevant to the proof of the act of causing property damage.