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

On August 4, 2019, at around 00:40, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s house located at the Defendant’s house located at the 20:40 p.m., by using the network (27Cm in length) that is a dangerous object that the Defendant’s wife C did not open and enter the house at the Defendant’s house at the Defendant’s house located at the 20:40 p.m., and then, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s room, which is a dangerous object (27C).

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. E statements;

1. On-site photographs and net photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( telephone communications for a suspect) and telephone communications;

1. Relevant Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant case, including the following circumstances, the age, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances and result of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The favorable circumstances: The fact that one's mistake is divided and reflected, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the present family members are making efforts to restore the relationship with his/her family: Damage to the household goods by perfort as dangerous articles, and the fact that the nature of the crime is poor in light of the method of crime, and that he/she has been punished for violent crimes.