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

On July 30, 2020, at around 22:25, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the victim’s above cargo vehicle by using a hacklet (one name: 74 cm, 74 cm, 20 cm in width) which is a dangerous object in order to cover the driver’s seat window of the above cargo vehicle in order to remove the hacker and move the hacker without any contact several times, while parking the victim’s hacker D truck, which is the victim’s property, around the artificial park business establishment operated by the Defendant located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the hump photographs, hump photographs, and the damaged glass windows on the side of the damaged freight car; and

1. Relevant Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Taking into account that there exists no record of punishment exceeding a fine);

1. The defendant's act of committing the instant crime is disadvantageous to the defendant because he/she did not control his/her own labor and committed the instant crime, which has many criminal records of the same kind of violence as the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2

However, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime are considered as favorable circumstances, and the defendant's sentence is the same as the order in consideration of the records and the factors of the sentencing revealed in the trial process.