Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking and mental disability (Grade II).

1. On January 6, 2015, at around 15:05, the Defendant damaged the non-repairable property, such as the damage of the 100cc scooters and the right-hand scoooo, which are parked on India, without justifiable reasons, after being mixed with D's prior delivery located in Suwon-gu Busan, Busan, and without justifiable reasons.

2. The defendant has observed the above crime at the same time and at the same place; and

'I see 'I see 'I see that feas feas feas feas feas

The victim's face and the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Recording records of the examination of witness in relation to E (including recording records);

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire into criminal history, report on investigation (report on the result of confirmation of the previous convictions of the disposition and report on the date of release);

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence, the choice of fines) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Articles 10 (2) and 10 (1) and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (person with mental or physical weakness) of the Criminal Act mitigated by law;

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

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant's assertion;

A. The part of the damage to property is only the same as the Defendant, who walked the way of drinking, and did not have the intention of the damage to property.

B. The Defendant only resisted E’s behavior to catch flaps, and did not assault E.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant, at the time, destroyed the E’s erroneous part of the evidence and set forth such evidence.