1. Around April 8, 2017, the Defendant destroyed the foregoing things in the “E” beauty room operated by the victim D located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on April 8, 2017, with golf loans, which are dangerous objects in that place, and 22 copies of cremation for cremation managed by the damager, one computer monitor, one device monitor, one card terminal, and one unit of 6,480,000 won for incidental repair.

2. The defendant shall take up 200,000 won in cash managed by the victim F who had been in the Yellow Sea at the time, time, and place described in paragraph (1).

In other words, they stolen them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement prepared by the F and D;

1. A statement in a written estimate;

1. Application of each of the visual Acts and subordinate statutes to each damaged photograph;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Scope of sentencing recommended according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Crimes of destroying special property [type] Habitual, repeated crimes, and special destruction and damage category 1 (Habitual, repeated crimes, special damage, etc.) : Imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months from one year and six months;

(b) Theft [Types of Theft] Basic area of larceny for general property (the scope of recommendations]: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months to 1 year and 1 months;

(c) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment for not less than 8 months to 2 years; and

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, at around 2016, was sentenced to the punishment of each fine on two occasions for the crime of destroying property and one time for the crime of causing bodily injury, and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even while being prosecuted for the crime of destroying property on or around February 14, 2017 and under trial, the same type of crime was committed, and the amount of damage incurred from the crime of destroying special property is reasonable, the Defendant was not agreed with the victim, and it appears that the recovery of damage was not possible.