The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant: (a) around 19:00 on September 17, 2016, at around 19:0, the 3rd floor f45 parking lot AKp D, located in 944, as in the Seocho-gu, Suwon-si, the Defendant: (b) parked the F-type vehicle under his/her own possession in the front section of the vehicle immediately adjacent to the vehicle parked by the Defendant; (c) the Defendant f-type vehicle was parked in a narrow manner; and (d) the Defendant f-type vehicle f-type vehicle f-type f-type vehicle f-type f-type f-type f-type f-type f-type 40 m in the horizontal width of the damaged vehicle, using

As above, the Defendant destroyed one vehicle on the market value of the victim’s ownership.

2. Determination

A. The evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case lies in the witness E’s legal statement and the investigative agency’s statement, black stuff images, estimates, and photographs of damaged vehicles.

A written estimate or a photograph of a damaged vehicle may be recognized only for the fact that the number of defects is 40 cm from the middle of the front seat of the E vehicle at the horizontal level.

The key issue of this case is whether the defendant intentionally sent the above defects, and the E’s statement and the black image as shown in support thereof are insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case for the following reasons.

1) On September 17, 2016, E parked in a 3rd floor F45 parking lot of AKp D, in Suwon-si around 18:40 on September 17, 2016, and immediately after parking, E did not verify whether there is a defect in his/her first class door.

E and family members have returned to around 20:00 on September 17, 2016 after they conducted meals and shopping in AK F D, and they considered that E's wife was defective in the early door while getting off the vehicle.

E directly considered that there is a defect in the front sentence of the camping on September 19, 2016.

Although it is clear that E’s wife’s 40 cent of defects as stated in the facts charged of this case were found to have been defective immediately after parking, the possibility of the occurrence of defects in E’s st head sentence before parking cannot be ruled out.

2) E is a defect in the head sentence of his own tea.