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

1. On October 2016, the Defendant damaged the victim C-owned M& car in front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul at the end of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, thereby cutting off the driver’s seat in front of the victim C-owned M& car so that the repair cost amounting to KRW 1.60,000.

2. On February 25, 2017, around 03:04, the Defendant: (a) laid down a garbage which is mixed with a cigaretteing and bed in the top door of the passenger car owned by the victim C on the street; and (b) destroyed the Defendant’s damage to ensure that the repair cost is caused by cutting the string of the strings.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of C’s statement protocol statutes

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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. According to Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, a sentence shall be imposed as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, under which the defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) is highly likely to have a lot of criminal history, and the defendant's recognition of and reflects on the crime and smoothly agreed with the victim.