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

1. 특수 재물 손괴 피고인은 2017. 5. 12. 20:17 경 창원시 성산구 C 건물 2 층에 있는 피해자 D 관리의 E 식당에서, 그곳에 있던 청소용 알루미늄 밀대( 길이 150cm )를 들고 마구 휘둘러, 그 곳 주방, 창고 및 매장에 설치되어 있는 변압기 1개, 벽시계 1개, 빨래 건조대 1개, 타파 통 4개, 가스 안전기 1개, 주문된 피자 8 판, 각종 식재료 등 시가 합계 1,062,480원 상당의 재물을 부숴 이를 손괴하였다.

2. The Defendant interfered with the operation of the restaurant by force between the time point of time and from the time point of time mentioned in the above paragraph (1) to 20:25 of the same day, and the place described in the above paragraph (1), and the disturbance as described in the above paragraph (1), thereby obstructing the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force between approximately eight minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. On-site dispatch reports;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (within damaged establishments);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

1. The reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the Defendant confessions the Defendant for the reasons for the sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) the Defendant’s conviction is divided in depth; (c) the symptoms of the Defendant’s quantitative disorder are likely to have an impact on the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant was smoothly agreed with the victim to a certain extent; and (e) the Defendant did not have any criminal record except for the Defendant’s crime of interference with business in 2016 on one occasion; (b) the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (c) the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee [the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the sentencing of the Defendant, including the following factors: (a) the type of special destruction of repeated repeated crimes (special destruction of repeated crimes)