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

On August 26, 2016, at around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) 'D main point' operated by the Victim C in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu; and (b) 'D main point' operated by the Defendant, on the ground that the injured party does not return his cell phone stored in the Defendant when intending to go out of the market without paying the drinking value after drinking together with his/her daily drinking; (c) Naba and head, the Defendant received a glass door of the cooling house located in the above main point and damaged the Defendant to require repair costs of approximately KRW 100,000,000 in the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damage, main receipts, and estimates of damage;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act to order observation of protection;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to three years; and

2. Application of the sentencing guidelines [types] : (a) types 1 (damage, etc. to property ) [person subject to special sentencing] - In the event that punishment of mitigation elements (including serious efforts to recover damage) or significant damage has been restored [decisions in the sphere of recommendation] / [decisions in the sphere of recommendation] / 1 month to 6 months [whether suspended sentence has been suspended] - Where positive grounds for mitigation (including serious efforts to recover damage) or significant damage have been restored: criminal records of suspended sentence at least twice adversely;

3. The punishment of imprisonment, suspension of execution, fines, etc., imposed on the defendant for a crime of the same kind of violent inclinations is highly likely to be imposed. In particular, the crime of this case is committed in the number of times due to the failure to pay a fine of KRW 10 million, a fine of KRW 300,000,000,000, and a fine of KRW 500,000,000,000,000, which was sentenced in 2016, and the crime of this case committed in the course of a crime of the obstruction of business: Provided, That it shall be taken into account that