The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

On June 27, 2013, at around 05:28, the Defendant: (a) asked C, who waits for a bus at the bus stops located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, without any justifiable reason, to ask C to “if any, any, the bus at the remote location”; (b) caused C to destroy the bus fare collection machine and the freight fare flow installed in the instant village bus located in the E community bus operated by the victim D by the victim D, thereby damaging the goods worth KRW 462,00,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the damaged supply and demand apparatus, photographs, and written estimates;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

2. Fine of 500,000 won to be suspended; and

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse.

4. The rejection of prosecution pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the first offender, the confession of the crime and the deep reflectiveness of the crime, the damage inflicted on the victim, and the smooth agreement of the victim) of the suspended sentence

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) at the above time and place, the Defendant committed assault against the victim, such as duplicating C’s distribution and shoulder, duplicating C’s timber, duplicating C with duplicating, duplicating, and duplicating C.

2. The judgment is the case falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the statement “Submission of a written agreement and written withdrawal of complaint” in the written formation of the victim C, the above victim may be acknowledged as the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on October 17, 2013, which is the date of the instant indictment.

3. According to the conclusion, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.