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

1. On December 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 02:00, on the ground that the victim D(50 years of age) who was in front of the 'C' head of the Dong-gun, Northbuk-gun, was taking the face of the victim one time to drink, the Defendant was on the sprinking back the victim requiring treatment for ten (10) days.

2. On April 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00 on April 18, 2015, at the headline of “G” operated by the Victim F, asked the Victim F to be the victim’s son; (b) but the victim was born, the Defendant got a window on the part of the consignee who was located there, and got a window to the window (ro 80cm, length 100cm, length 100cm). A copy of the glass window (Garo 80cm, length 100cm, length 150cm, length 150cm) on the part of the Defendant shouldered and carried two air conditioners (Garo 70cm, length 150cm, length 150cm).

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim to the sum of 9.30,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to H, D, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an injury diagnosis report, an investigation report (Attachment of photographs), and an investigation report (Attachment of estimates);

1. Relevant Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the point of injury) and Article 257(1) of the same Act concerning the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on community service and lecture attendance order are the same in that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, even though he had the record of punishment more than twice due to the same kind of crime.

However, it is true that the defendant has led to a confession of all crimes, and is in depth against his depth, and the crime of this case occurred in a state of drunken by the defendant, and the degree of damage is minor, and the victim is not punished for the defendant by mutual consent with the injured victim.