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

1. The Defendant committed the crime against the victim B around August 15, 2015, and around 21:20, Asan City, D, on the front road of Asan City, without any justifiable reason, destroyed the repair cost by blocking the front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in the case of Ecopi, which the victim driven while driving, by blocking the front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle, and destroying the vehicle after the left side, thereby impairing the repair cost to approximately 400,000 won.

2. The Defendant committed a crime against the Victim F with respect to the victim F, at the same time, at the same place as described in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place, and at the victim’s vehicle driving G Kanknop, obstructed the victim’s vehicle and walking the driver’s boom, and damaged the light after the left-hand side to damage the 151,80 won of the repair cost so that it can be invalidated.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of victims B and F;

1. A statement in a written estimate;

1. Application of the video Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged vehicles and photographs of victims;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is poor, such as destroying the victims’ vehicles without any particular reason while under the influence of alcohol, and there was a record of having been sentenced to seven times a fine due to violent crimes, and four times a fine (one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment and three times a fine) due to this type of crime; on the other hand, the Defendant agreed with the victims, and there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine after around 193, and it is against the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, on August 15, 2015, is drunk on the road located in Asan-si, Asan-si, around D, without any justifiable reason.