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

On June 23, 2015, at around 21:00, the Defendant went to a customer with the “D” main points of the “D’s operation” of the victim C in Changwon-si, Msan-si B, and only the Defendant first went to the said main points. On the same day, as the mobile phone was lost at around 23:15, the Defendant returned to the said main points without finding any mobile phone again with the victim.

At around 23:20 on June 6, 2015, the Defendant first got in front of the above main points, and was assaulted by the fluor and the fluor on the ground that the Defendant did not find the cell phone devices as above, and caused fire, thereby damaging the entrance door (2m, street, 1m, 8m in thickness) equivalent to the market price by putting concrete bricks, which are dangerous objects at the entrance of the above main points, on both hand, at the entrance of the above main points, on the ground that the Defendant was in front of the above main points and was in use of the bluor, and was in use of the fluor at the entrance of the above main points, and was in use of the entrance door (2m, street, 1m, and 8m in thickness) at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 366 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Suspension of execution: The fact that the errors in sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act are divided and that there exists an agreement with the victim; and