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 February 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) misleads the victim D (60 cc, female) who is living together in Seocheon-si C and 2 residential areas on February 1, 2017, that the victim D (60 cc, female) was not living in his/her back investigation; (b) taken off a dangerous object (42 m in total length) which was a dangerous object that was living in the process of an extension.

In addition, the market price of the victim owned by the victim was 6,750,000 won as shown in the list of damaged articles, such as cutting off a cooling house, even a brush, which is the victim's owner, and destroying the property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. On-site photographs taken by police officers at the first site, investigation reports (Attachment of photographs of damaged objects), investigation reports (Attachment of on-site photographs);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to records of seizure, list of seizure, evidence of seizure and photographs of seized articles;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The sentence identical to the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances under the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the defendant’s age, occupation, sex, sex, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc.

- The Defendant had been punished several times due to violent crimes, but did not go to the instant crime without good cause.

- The crime of this case is committed in almost all of the household tools using dangerous and dangerous things to live together victims, and the crime is bad.

The victim suffered a lot of mental impulse and boomed fear.

- It seems that the defendant did not compensate the victim for the damage or borrow a letter.

- However, the defendant has been detained in the instant case and has an opportunity to reflect to a certain degree, and the injured party has recognized the error, and the injured party has not been punished by the defendant.