1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won;

2. Where the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 1, 2015, the Defendant damaged a large-scale flag owned by the victim F, which had been located in a fighting team with other U.S. armed forces, and was laid in a sponsor with other people, and damaged the sponsor (on the market price of KRW 500,000), and damaged the sponsor (on the market price of KRW 300,000).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. CCTV images;

1. Estimated documents (the witness G stated the Defendant's appearance in the absence of any other indication at the time of the initial mobilization to the police, and thereafter after the police examined CCTV in the police, the Defendant was identified, and the offender's appearance in the CCTV is similar to that of the Defendant’s first statement, and it does not appear that another person similar to the appearance in which G stated to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish him/her from that of the Defendant.

In addition, G consistently stated that the principal himself/herself was the Defendant from the investigative agency to the present court, and there is room for special falsity or error in the process of identifying the offender in the G or the subsequent statement.

There is no circumstance to see, and in light of the attitude and content of the statement, there is credibility.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning a crime. Article 366 (Selection of Penalty)

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

1. Of the facts charged under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as to the part of not guilty part of the charges, that the Defendant collected a spacker and opened a spacker, the health stand, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the spacker and the table have been damaged, but it is insufficient to prove that it was caused by the Defendant’s intentional destruction and damage, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the Criminal Procedure Act should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, because there is no proof of crime, but it is a single crime.