Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 20, 2016, the Defendant took a bath to police officers E, etc. who called up after receiving a report from the Defendant that the Defendant was running the business of the said main shop, and took a bath to the police officer E, etc. who was parked at the same time on January 20, 2016, and lost the repair cost of KRW 130,000.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written statement G, H, and I;

1. Receipts:

1. Application of film and video-related Acts and subordinate statutes to patrol vehicles;

1. Article 141 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

A. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant gets to drink the instant bus, and the police attempted to restrain the Defendant from resisting and resisting the Defendant, and thus, it constitutes a legitimate defense.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence of the judgment, namely, police officers E, who were at the present site, called the Defendant called the Defendant at the main point of the instant case, and the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender by destroying the 112 patrol scambr and destroying the 112 patrol scam.

Specifically, it is reliable to make a statement, but it is not clear whether it is a food in this court or not.

In full view of the fact that a witness G and I made a statement to the effect that the defendant was forced to move at the main point of this case and damaged the patrol vehicle, the fact that the defendant destroyed public goods as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is sufficiently recognized, and the party defense assertion on a different premise is without merit.