Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Criminal facts

1. On November 2016, the Defendant: (a) was dissatisfied with the victim B, who resides in an apartment, such as the workplace rent, and was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s audit duty; (b) around November 2016, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s key to the vehicle owned by the victim B, who was parked in the off, EdotalaV4 hybridd car, and thereby destroyed the said car’s car’s shape even with a flick part by flicking it.

2. Around March 19, 2018, the Defendant, at the same place as Paragraph 1, around 00:45 on March 19, 2018, destroyed the vehicle key owned by the victim Edotalavi4 hybridD car owned by the victim B for the same reason, to have approximately KRW 10,000,000 of the repair cost by flaging the front and rear door of the said vehicle, and the front and rear door of the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. B written statements;

1. A report on the occurrence of a crime, a report on internal investigation, and a report on investigation;

1. CCTV images, on-site and vehicle-related photographs, CCTV video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a field map and a written estimate of repair costs;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Summary order and the opinion of the prosecution: Fine of 5,000,000 won; and

2. Determination of sentence: The instant crime of KRW 3,00,000 was committed by the Defendant, while serving in the audit division, did not review the Defendant’s delivery of explanatory materials to the victim before several years prior to the Defendant’s service, but rather regularly proceed with the audit procedure, thereby severely damaging the victim’s vehicle over two occasions. In light of the motive, circumstance, method of the crime, and the result of the damage.