beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On March 5, 2018, at around 20:40, the Defendant discovered that DFD car owned by the victim C was parked in the entrance of the Defendant’s residence on the front side of Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, and found the back part of the said car as a flick tool and the main part of the flick, etc. in a flick manner, and destroyed and damaged the back part of the said car by means of a flick, etc.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement to E by the police;
1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding each investigation report (the analysis of the black stay images, the attachment of a site photo, the search of surrounding the scene of damage, and the attachment of a suspect's residence photo)
1. Summary of the assertion
A. The facts charged were not specified.
(b) There is no fact of damage;
2. Determination
A. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the facts charged by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. As such, considering the nature of the crime prosecuted, it is sufficient to specify the facts causing the public prosecution by stating the time, place, method, purpose, etc. of the public prosecution to the extent that it is distinguishable from other facts, and it is sufficient to specify the time, place, place, content, etc. of the
Even if it is somewhat unclear or some of the facts charged, if the facts charged can be specified by the other indicated matters, and thus there is no impediment to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, it cannot be said that the facts charged are not specified solely for such reason.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5561, Jun. 14, 2007). The facts charged in the instant case appear to be specified in the date, time, place, and part of the damage, and did not specify the implements used by the Defendant or the form of the damage.