Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:00 on September 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while driving a vehicle in front of the company bank located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) was able to take care of the victim C on the ground that the victim C, who was getting on a hybrid vehicle in front of the company bank located in the front line of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was able to take care of the victim’s vehicle; (c) set off the victim’s vehicle with the victim’s vehicle on the side; (d) made the victim’s vehicle on a drinking, cut off the victim’s vehicle; and (e) made the victim’s vehicle on a hand so that the driver’s seat does not work (i.e., dividing the burner, lest the driver’s seat come into contact).

The facts charged in the instant case reveal that “a person who damages the said hub car to cover approximately KRW 990,000 won of the repair cost,” and according to the evidence (written estimate, investigation record No. 49) duly adopted by the court following the examination of evidence, it can be seen that the cost of replacing the driver’s seat on the side (including the cost of public service and transportation) is KRW 990,000 (including additional tax).

However, even if the statement of the witness C in this Court is based on the statement of the witness C, it is doubtful whether the said vehicle was damaged by the repair cost equivalent to KRW 990,000 for the above replacement cost, since it is not connected with the driver's seat and there is no problem in driving because the external form is not damaged or glass is not broken.

However, it is sufficient to evaluate that “the driver did not work on the side of the driver’s seat (i.e., to prevent the driver’s seat from being connected with the driver’s seat)” (i.e., to prevent the driver’s seat from being connected with the driver’s seat),” and even in this case, the fact-finding was conducted ex officio on the ground that there is no difficulty in establishing the crime of damage.

(Recognition of Identity of Facts of Prosecution) Summary of evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of the mobile phone screen CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;