On July 23, 2018, the Defendant, at the time of light 13:46, was under the influence of alcohol at a lush parking lot B located adjacent to the above cargo lid (40cm wide, 40cm high, 40cm high) so that the Defendant may damage the above cargo vehicle, such as fluor, fluor, pans, side door, back door, and back part of the driver’s seat, and fluor, fluor, fluor of the above cargo vehicle owned by the Defendant, to repair the above cargo vehicle, such as fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor of the victim E in front of the above cargo fluor, and shut down the fluor by hand after the passage of the passenger vehicle owned by the said cargo fluor, and damage the above cargo fluor, such as repair expenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement in C and E;

1. A photograph of the damaged vehicle;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is high enough to have been punished for various crimes, such as violence, obstruction of business, and damage to property, and even if the defendant was sentenced to a fine by destroying another person's motor vehicle during the suspension period due to the same kind of crime, each of the crimes in this case has been committed again, and the defendant needs to be isolated from society for a certain period.

On the other hand, in consideration of the fact that the amount of damage to property damaged by the defendant is not so significant, that the defendant agreed with the victim C, and that the defendant shows an attitude against the defendant's wrong, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.