1. On March 1, 2013, the Defendant damaged the victim’s 'E' house operated by Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul on the ground that the victim did not drink any alcohol, the Defendant damaged the victim’s share of electric 200,000 won, which was the victim’s possession, by generating one electric string-ro and one 200,000 won of the market value.

2. The Defendant, in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapons, etc.) and at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), passed the beer disease, which is a dangerous object on his/her table, on the ground that the victim F (nives, 48 years of age) was boomed, and then, the victim’s bruds were hicked, and then the victim’s bruds were hicked by taking the bruder’s disease on his/her hand by taking the victim’s bruds and hicking the victim’s bruds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The indication of the accused in D in the second examination report of suspect to the prosecution;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect of G;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Application of each statute of G, D, and F

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) The point of destroying and damaging property: Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

(b) The point of intimidation: Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant repented his mistake and deposited KRW 400,00 for the victim D.

However, even though the defendant was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Seoul Eastern District Court on July 16, 2008 due to the crime against the victim D, the defendant repeated the crime of this case against the victim D in the nature of retaliation, and committed the crime against the other victim at the place of business of the victim D.