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.

On April 17, 2016, at around 23:30, the Defendant destroyed 30,000 won of the market price owned by the victim C (45) at around 23:30, the Defendant’s house of the victim C (45) located in the North west-gun B, the Defendant was punished for trial expenses due to D and inheritance problems, other than the Defendant’s living together, and D and inheritance issues. Moreover, the Defendant damaged the Epoter freight, which is a dangerous object from the Epoter freight owned by the Defendant (40cm in total length and 20,000 square meters in length), by putting about 30,000 won of the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the No. 3,8,9 of the evidence list);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] / [the scope of punishment / ] Habitual, repeated crime, special damage [the repeated crime, special damage, etc.] / [the person who has been specially mitigated] in the area of special mitigation (two months to ten months) / where actual damage is minor, the defendant's failure to punish (including serious efforts to recover damage) or substantial damage has been restored (the decision of sentencing] / the defendant damaged the victim's articles that are not related to the Si expenses while he/she was punishing his/her birth and Si expenses, using a very dangerous improvement, and the defendant has been sentenced to a fine several times.

However, in light of the fact that damage is not so large that damage is not severe, that the defendant agreed with the victim, that the defendant was considerably drunk and that such circumstance seems to have affected the crime of this case, that there is no criminal record of the same kind, that the defendant is against the defendant, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.