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

(e).

On January 24, 2019, at around 21:30 on January 24, 2019, the Defendant destroyed the victim E, a portable gas server, a fraud, a brut, etc. owned by the victim E, which was on the table table, among the disputes involving D and clux in Songpa-gu Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the scene of damage;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to three years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of a type] destruction of property, damage, etc. [Type 1] - In cases of causing danger to the body of an aggravated element: [The scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment] increased area; there is no person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months to 1 year and 6 months [the grounds for suspension of execution] [the grounds for suspension of execution] - There is no contingent crime, or no person who has been sentenced to suspended execution or heavier punishment - there is no effort to recover damage: no person who has made any effort to recover damage.

3. Determination of sentence: The portion not guilty for eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence;

1. On January 24, 2019, at around 21:30 minutes, the Defendant divided the previous stories in the course of drinking D and alcohol at a restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul. As a result, the Defendant was injured by the number of days of treatment by gathering a shoulder fluort, which is a dangerous object by destroying the spawn in the table.

2. D’s statement is made as evidence corresponding to the above facts charged.

However, in light of the situation at the time when it is acknowledged by the statement of the person concerned with the damage field photograph (Evidence No. 16 pages) and the damage scene photograph (Evidence No. 16 pages), the defendant cannot be seen to have taken the hand on the troke even after the defendant laid a portable gas burner, fraud stud, and so on.

D-.