1. 특수재물손괴 피고인은 2018. 8. 2. 11:35경 공주시 B건물 C호에 있는 변호사인 피해자 D의 사무실에서 위험한 물건인 지팡이(길이 1.4m, 지름 4cm)로 피해자 소유인 컴퓨터 모니터와 전화기, 키보드를 내리쳐 파손하고, 계속하여 지팡이로 사무실 내에 있던 원형 테이블을 내리쳐 유리 덮개를 깨뜨리고 테이블 모서리를 부숴 약 73만 원 상당의 재물을 손괴하였다.

2. A special intimidation: (a) the Defendant destroyed office equipment, etc. located in the office as stated in Paragraph (1) at the time and place specified in Paragraph (1); (b) the Defendant posted stick, which is a dangerous object near the office room, to the victim E (the 50-year old), and then posted the screen image on a mobile phone, and then the victim sited into the cell phone, and then intimidation the victim as if he would inflict any bodily injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the second protocol of trial;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. On-site photographs and CDs (defense counsel asserted that there was no warning that the Defendant would thrown away knife knife as stated in the facts constituting the crime, but according to the images of the above CD, the Defendant’s aforementioned remarks are recognized, and the above assertion by the defense counsel is without merit.) The application of the law is without merit.

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, and the choice of a sentence;

1. Determination on the defense counsel’s assertion under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The phrase of the Defendant, as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime, does not constitute intimidation merely because it is merely a temporary hump or pumo.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion that intimidation does not constitute intimidation