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

On May 30, 2020, the Defendant, at around 23:04, damaged the repair cost of KRW 80,000 on the ground that the victim B, who had been a studio in the past, was living in front of the studio Cudio in the Gunsan City where the victim B, who had been a studio in the past (the age of 53), intruded into the crebs in which the joint studio of the first floor is opened, thereby opening the door to the victim’s residence. However, on the ground that the victim did not open the door, the Defendant destroyed the repair cost of KRW 80,00 on the ground that he did not open the door.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to voluntary reports on dynamics (living intrusion and damage to property), caps, photographs and written estimates;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying and damaging property and the choice of imprisonment);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the suspension of execution shall be granted in consideration of the circumstances and contents of the crime, but the punishment of the defendant is not minor, such as the reflectivity of the defendant, the fact that there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, etc.), the criminal relation with the victim, the fact that the defendant has agreed smoothly with the victim,

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;