Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 13, 2015, the Defendant damaged the property by forcing a victim C(69 years of age) to leave the taxi to leave the taxi to the police office due to the problem of taxi charges on the front of the 35's 'Tho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City', the location of the 35' taxi in front of the 'Tho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant: (a) opened a chief door of the Do private taxi; and (b) caused the damage to the vehicle by taking the front door of the vehicle.

2. On September 13, 2015, the Defendant, at around 17:20 on September 13, 2015, sent money to the victim’s face one time with the victim’s face after getting out of the said taxi, at around 35’s identity.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the witness C and E in the second public trial protocol;

1. A report on investigation (CCTV verification) and a report on investigation (a counter investigation into a shote);

1. A written estimate of general repair costs and a detailed statement of inspection of automobile maintenance;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing taxi damage photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the choice of fines) concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with the punishment imposed on heavier property damage);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that in relation to the crime No. 1 of the judgment, the defendant and his defense counsel did not open a chief door of the taxi at the time and there was no consent.

그러나 피해자는 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 택시 요금 문제 때문에 피고인을 내리지 못하게 붙잡자 피고인이 강제로 택시 조수석 문을 열고 그 문을 발로 찼다는 취지로 일관되고 명확하게 진술하고 있다.

A witness E also has observed the situation at the time, and the head sentence was opened during the operation, and the defendant was sleeping the door.