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 March 23, 2017, the prosecution changed both the name of the crime and the applicable legal provisions from the trial date to special property damage or special residential intrusion under the Criminal Act. Accordingly, since it was obvious that the part of the " deadly weapons" in the facts charged is a clerical error in the "hazardous article", the prosecution partially revised the facts charged.

In order to comply with D, while the Defendant, who was his wife, became aware of the fact that B passed through her husband D and approximately one year before her husband D and D of the victim C (the age of 30), the Defendant invadedd the victim's house in Jindo-gun E, by putting the knife (10cm in length on October 8, 2014, approximately 20cm in total length), the dangerous articles around 07:00 on October 8, 2014, in order to comply with D.

However, the defendant confirmed that D is not inside the house, and damaged the victim's house entrance door and 7 glass windows from the building outer wall by rupture, and damaged by putting into the house one set of TV in the living room.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects into the house of the victim, and damaged the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of statutes on records of seizure and lists of seizure;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the crime, Articles 320 and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion into a dangerous object), Article 369 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying dangerous goods carrying property, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor) of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, invaded upon the victim’s residence while carrying dangerous objects and damaged the property.

The nature of the crime is not good in that the method of crime is inferior and the serious damage may occur.

In addition, the defendant did not receive any accusation from the injured party until now.

Considering the above circumstances, the defendant is harshly punished.