A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person driving D-wing cargo vehicles, and the victim C (58 years old) is a person driving the said taxi as the owner of E rocketing taxi.

On May 25, 2015, at around 23:48, the Defendant: (a) while driving the said cargo vehicle on the front of GL station in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, on the road in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and as a problem of interference with the course with the victim who driven the said taxi, was shaking the victim’s flab, getting down from the said cargo vehicle.

On May 25, 2015, the Defendant, at around 23:50 on May 25, 2015, driven the said taxi to avoid the Defendant, driven the said taxi along the three-lane road in front of the said gas station along the forest of the North Seoul el. From the long distance, the Defendant: (a) driven the said cargo vehicle, which is a dangerous object, and driven the said taxi into the two-lane; (b) posted the said taxi two-lanes along the direction towards the delivery to the said taxi while driving the said truck; (c) followed the direction toward the said taxi by the victim; and (d) destroyed the said taxi again by having 1,407,316 won in repairing the said taxi while driving the said truck, which is a dangerous object.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Blue boxes and video CDs;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Article 369 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 369 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (affirmative considering the reason for the suspended sentence);

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act regarding community service order;

1. The Defendant’s crime, which can be seen through the reasoning of sentencing under Articles 32(1) and 25(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc. of Application for Compensation, is very poor and highly dangerous in light of the method of crime and motive of crime.