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

On May 31, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution due to special intimidation in Seoul Northern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2017.

1. On August 6, 2016, at around 22:20, the Defendant attempted to damage public goods, and the Defendant proposed to enter the competent district unit in the influence of alcohol in front of the Daejeon Dong Police Station D District located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, by the head of the police station affiliated with the above police station, and attempted to remove the entrance by opening the entrance at the entrance of the entrance at the same time with the safety string of “any such Chewing flag, opening inside the door.” However, the entrance was not broken.

Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to damage the above glass entrance, which is the goods used by public offices, but did not bring about such intent.

2. On August 9, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s spawn by taking advantage of the victim H (42 3) who was under the influence of “G” in the Dong-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, about 00:50 on August 9, 2016, on the ground that he saw the victim’s h (42 h) he was under the influence of drinking around the main point of “G” located in the Dong-gu, Daejeon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal testimony of a witness I;

1. Statement made by the police to J and H;

1. I's self-statement;

1. Photographs;

1. Each investigation report [the defendant did not assault the victim H with a safety appearance]; however, the defendant cited a safety appearance, but was next to the defendant;

I argued that he was the Defendant’s grandchildren and that he was shocked by the Defendant’s face on the safety appearance cited by H. However, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that he was at the victim’s speed with the safety appearance cited by the Defendant.

The above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 143 and 141(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (a person who attempts to damage goods for public use) concerning criminal facts, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (a person who commits violence) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. To the end of Article 37 of the Criminal Act for the concurrent crimes;