The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

On August 6, 2016, at around 10:44, the Defendant: (a) driven a marina car in front of a restaurant in Jung-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon; (b) demanded the Defendant to sound a light string and turn off the way; (c) then, the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s vehicle by driving the mast car in front of the C restaurant in Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon; and (d) demanded the Defendant to turn off the way. Accordingly, the Defendant was at the bottom of the 305,886 won in diameter (5cm in diameter) at the right side of the victim’s vehicle and damaged the Defendant’s vehicle so that the repair cost would amount to 305,86 won.

However, there are two written statements of victims and E as direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

However, the following circumstances recognized through each evidence duly adopted and investigated in this Court, i.e., ① the victim stated in the written statement that he was directly witnessed by the Defendant, stating that “I am going to the seat of the roadway even at the time prior to that time.” However, in this court, the victim was faced with the vehicle that “I am to the seat of the Defendant from the public corporation and continued to sit.”

"(Taking notes 2 pages)" and "the face pages of the tamper" shall not be considered.

At all, it was not considered.

The statement was made to the effect that “(5-7 pages)” was “,” and ② in the written statement, E was also unable to avoid disturbance, such as blocking a vehicle where a male who was seated before the Sports Center passes, taking a bath, leaving the vehicle in front of the Sports Center.

“The Defendant stated as if he had directly observed the stone,” but in this court, “the Defendant citing stone with stone is not us.”

In light of the fact that “A” was stated to the effect that “A” was in progress at the construction site, ③ At the time, E, etc. was in progress, and the possibility of protruding to the victim’s vehicle cannot be ruled out (Evidence No. 10 pages), there is sufficient credibility in the victim’s and E’s statements.

see.