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

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 8, 2018, around 18:10, the Defendant: (a) around the first floor of the building located in Southern-gu, Southern-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) around 112, the police officers belonging to the New Police Station located in the Yanannam-dong Police Station, who received a report and called out after 112, intended to move the Defendant’s wife C to the patrol vehicle to separate the Defendant’s wife from the domestic violence victim; and (c) laid down the unclaimed vessel boom on the market value attached to the back of the patrol seat.

Accordingly, the Defendant harming the use of the patrol car, which is an object used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of CCTV and on-site photographs Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 141 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 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. Intentionally non-existence claim

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant intentionally destroyed the boomer, and that he was damaged the clothes in the process of removing himself from the patrol vehicle by the police.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of judgment, the Defendant’s intentional damage to the boom may be fully acknowledged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

1) D, a direct witness, was the Defendant’s hand, knife and boomed by the Defendant.

Although the above statement is made, it is specific and consistent, and it is reliable in light of the above witness's legal attitude to make a statement.

2) Considering the damaged type of the frontline and the degree of ordinary contact, it seems not easy to remove the frontline from the ground because it is separated from the lower body to the extent of the clothes taken, such as the Defendant’s assertion.

3) C made a statement to the effect that the Defendant did not work in a prior base.

However, in light of the purport of the entire statement of C, C does not accurately see the situation at the time.