The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaged in acting as an agent driving business.

On July 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 337 Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul and 337 Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-dong, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-ro

2. In the instant case, the Defendant and the other party to the instant vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) damaged the front glass of the victim’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) and directly witness them.

It is a matter asserted.

At the time of the police investigation, the victim considered that the defendant returned to the vehicle of this case after he was faced and the victim broken the front glass from the outside of the vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant appeared to have been aware of the full glass of drinking inside the vehicle because the victim was satisfyed.

The argument is asserted.

The police verified the state of damage to the front glass of the vehicle repairer who replaced the front glass of the instant vehicle, and the F stated that the front glass of the instant vehicle is intercomponent 2, and the inside glass was not damaged, and it appears that the inside glass was damaged and that it was damaged from the outside, and that this form of damage could not be absolutely caused to be taken on drinking inside. The prosecutor stated that the victim's statement is more reliable on the basis of the F's statement.

Based on the judgment, the prosecution of this case was instituted against the defendant.

However, the victim was present as a witness in this court, and the victim was completely satisfed and did not directly witness the front glass of the defendant. However, when the victim talks outside of the defendant's body and the vehicle, the victim was in front of the vehicle at the time.