However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

1. Around 00:50 on April 21, 2014, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapons, etc., damage, etc.) collected tampers ( approximately 30cm in length, approximately 8cm in thickness), which are dangerous objects in the horse at the scene, and damaged the victim’s unclaimed glass ( approximately 30cm in length, about 1m in length, about 1m in length) side of the front door of the market price, which is the victim’s ownership, by drinking the victim’s dwelling in Gyeonggi-si B, and opening the front door to the victim under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (investigations related to failure to attach a written estimate for damage and reporting on the victim's telephone statement);

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., confession and reflection of an offense, and points agreed with the victim);

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution provides that the Defendant: (a) was able to catch the above leader in his hand in order to prevent the Defendant from shouldering the date and time and place of the crime; (b) and (c) assaulted with the victim C (56 years of age) who speaks the Defendant; and (d) fladbly flably flabed with the victim’s left arms in favor of the victim.

The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act that cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the victim’s agreement was submitted to the effect that the victim withdraws his/her wish to punish the Defendant on September 1, 2014, which was after the prosecution of the instant case, and the prosecution of the instant case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Even though there has been a history of causing an injury to the victim once due to the reason of sentencing, the case is not less than that of destroying the victim's property.

provided, however, that the victim is a victim.