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 21, 2020, the Defendant of special property damage: (a) destroyed repair charges by putting a knife (32 cm in total length, 20 cm in knife length), which is a dangerous object, on the ground that noise, such as the victim C (ma, 66 years old)’s house located in Sinung-si B (ma), opening a part of the victim’s window, opening a window, and making a big erosion, etc.; (b) thereby causing noise; (c) and (d) making it difficult for the victim to know the market price that is owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and damaged the victim's property.

2. A special intimidation: (a) around April 21, 2020, the Defendant: (b) at the above place on April 19:15, 2020; (c) stated that the Defendant saw the instant knife with the said knife for the said reasons; and (d) stated that the Defendant

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police record of seizure of the police record of the defendant's legal statement C, and the investigation report of damaged articles damaged by the seizure list (the contents of the statement D);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime

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. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code is that the crime itself is very serious since the defendant's knife knife and the victim's knife knife is affixed and the victim's knife knife

(The defendant brought a knife to defend, but the carrying of the knife cannot be deemed as defensive purpose). The defendant, even before the case, had been brought to the same victim and had been sentenced to a fine on the day of intimidation, and the victim still complained of fear.

On the other hand, after the occurrence of the case, the defendant is subject to the procedure of administrative hospitalization.