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

On July 29, 2014, from around 15:00 to around 17:50, the Defendant: (a) had a good appraisal by the victim D, who was at the time of a flat vehicle operation, and had a good appraisal; (b) again, caused the victim to scambling and scambling the Epir vehicle to go at the time of the Epir vehicle operation; and (c) destroyed the said net part of the said vehicle at the construction site adjacent to the parking site; and (d) destroyed the said vehicle by scambling the said part by 725,60 won in total of the repair cost for the vehicle owner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. On-site and photographs of damaged vehicles, investigation reports (fluorics of a damaged vehicle fluor video fluor, photo of a black fluore), and photofluorics;

1. Application of investigation reports (reports related to estimates for maintenance of damaged vehicles), CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;