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

1. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) tried to look at the victim C’s house, the former wife who was divorced from Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu B, and tried to look at the victim’s speech that he would go from the victim while communicating; (b) however, the victim was placed on the victim’s television side of the ward, who was in the second floor, and destroyed the victim’s house by leaving a chemical part of the amount equivalent to KRW 20,00,000 at the victim’s market price located on the television side of the ward.

2. Around 09:10 on the 12th of the same month, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) destroyed a glass window (a) owned by the victim with an Aluminium pipe (77 cm in length), which is a dangerous object at the mast, due to the search for drunk at the above place and the fact that the victim C does not open the entrance, thereby damaging the glass window (a 60 cm in length, 170 cm in length) equivalent to 30,000 won for repair.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (as to attachment of field photographs, as to attachment of hack pipe photographs, and as to submission of receipts on destruction of glass of a living room);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for a crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. For the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake in recognizing the fact that the defendant does not commit a second offense in the future, the degree of damage is not so significant, the defendant does not have any criminal record exceeding the fine, the age, tendency, relationship with the victim, etc.