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

At around 14:15 on August 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) reported the form of “Dprefabricated-type warehouse,” in which the victim C, who was divorced with B, is proceeding with the Defendant, to build a new construction, and then damaged the emerculation of the emerculation and 14 windows (a 60 cm, 60 cm) in the warehouse in the emerculation, which is a dangerous object, and damaged the emerculation of the emerculation and 14 cm (a 60 cm, emerc) in the warehouse in the emerci.g., the emercian-type warehouse, which is a dangerous object in the emerci.g., the Defendant destroyed the glass window by destroying it at the window, and continuously damaged the emerc-type and 50 glus of the emerc in the emerc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of C and E;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Jan. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 2, 201)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary mitigation);