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

On March 30, 2017, around 06:30 on March 30, 2017, the Defendant destroyed and damaged an outdoor table (1m, 2m, 90cm in height) of which the market price of the victim D, located in front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, by putting one part of the outdoor table (1m, 1m, 2m, 90cm in hand, and 3m cm below the dump of the evidence.

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (the purport that digging off the table above the unsloping road is appropriate);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. On-site photographs, etc. (the defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant thins off the outdoor table below the slope, but did not damage it.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, i.e., ① the Defendant’s shot and Gemanmanium, etc. on the sloping road in which the outdoor table tables are opened, ② the Defendant’s sloping of the outdoor table can be predicted by anyone in light of the empirical rule. As such, it can be sufficiently recognized the fact that the outdoor table was damaged by the Defendant’s act, the above assertion is rejected.)

Application of Statutes

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment;

1. Around November 14, 2016, around 12:23, 2016, the Defendant cut off approximately two million CCTV installed in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, to a tool with no knowledge of three CCTV installed by the victim D on the boundary network of the boundary in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and stolen the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial shall be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and such evidence is not sufficient.