Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall destroy evidence in any criminal or disciplinary case of another person.

B around 22:20 on May 17, 2018, caused a traffic accident due to negligence of driving while under the influence of alcohol and escaped, and caused a destruction of evidence related to the investigation of the case in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, by requesting the Defendant, through C, etc. on May 20, 2018, for the purpose of hiding the fact of excessive driving under his own influence of alcohol, through “influor video, by eliminating the part against the speed limitation on front of the driver’s seat of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the driver’s seat, so that the speed limitation cannot be seen.”

On the same day, the Defendant, in accordance with B’s above teachers, deleted the part against the speed limitation in front of the driver’s seat of the car from the black stuff image where the image is recorded at the time of the accident of the above driver’s car, so as not to make the speed limitation difficult.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed evidence of another person's criminal case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes, such as a investigation report (verification of the suspect B B B B B B B B stuff image operation status), a mobile analysis report, etc., an investigation report (verification of the fact that a suspect B handles the black stuff image), four copies of a screen to cut off the black stuff image, an investigation report (verification of the suspect B's statement manipulation and additional handling of black stuff image at the time of the accident, etc.), and mobile analysis data (B and Part A1);

1. Relevant Article 155 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The Defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes his criminal act as the primary offender.

In addition, the defendant is in a relationship between B and workplace companies and subordinate companies, and it seems that the defendant could have easily refused the request for destruction of evidence by reason of the contract officer.