2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant’s depth, and it appears that the clothes were rapidly dried and contingent on an outdoor parking lot outside the alleys where he was living together with his her her friend while he was under the influence of human life and not fully mature, and that it appears that the Defendant committed the crime; the degree of damage is not severe; the Defendant’s block 2 out of the damaged articles was entirely seized to the investigative agency and was already returned to the victim; the Defendant’s injury was fully compensated to the victim and agreed solely with the victim; the Defendant had already committed the same kind of crime with her friende and was under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment by the court; and the Defendant had already been under the same age of six months since her friende and was under the influence of being under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor; and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to the motive and circumstances of each of the instant crimes; and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been under the suspension of execution of punishment.

The grounds for the sentencing of the defendant's assertion (such as the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the fact that the damaged article is minor and the victim has been returned to the victim) are shown to be the reasons that the court below has already considered the punishment of the defendant.