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

1. On April 26, 2013, at around 16:45, the Defendant, at the victim D’s house located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, found the victim to have a pet dog kidsced by the victim's kiscing, and to resist this, it would not be possible for the victim to open the door without opening the door, and the Defendant sent the door door to the bar kiscing with the metal kis the victim's own seat, which 30,000,000 won of the market price of the victim's possession, and carried it into the entrance, and infringed upon the residence of the victim.

2. Although any person who violated the Act on the Damage of Property and the Protection of Animal did not die by cruel methods, such as breaking a tree against an animal, the Defendant, after intrusion upon the victim’s house, went into the victim’s house, and then died by taking a head of a pet dog equivalent to one million won at the market price, which is the victim’s property, and at the same time destroyed the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. 12 Reporting cases, the application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing damaged photographs;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 46 (1) and Article 8 (1) 1 of the Animal Protection Act (the act of killing an animal in a cruel manner) concerning the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 (Punishments on the crimes of destruction and damage of property and violation of the Animal Protection Act, and punishment prescribed for the crimes of destruction and damage of property heavier than punishment) of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. For the reason of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the crime of this case is being deprived of the life of an animal with dignity and value as its existence itself in a cruel manner, which is beyond the infringement of other person's property rights, and it is a material form that makes it impossible for the victim to die an pet animal whose assistant principal is divided with the victim.