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

On May 22, 2015, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s joint ownership of the victim, such as 300,000 won in the market price, scambling with the victim’s c where the Defendant had a dispute with the victim against the purchase of the victim’s insurance at the time of the Government-Si around 21:30 on May 22, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime of this case [Selection of imprisonment, taking into account the fact that it appears that domestic violence has been exercised several times prior to the crime of this case, in particular, the District Court 2015B105, which committed the crime of this case, even though the home protection case was in progress];

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding a fine due to violence, and that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant and the victim seems to have sufficiently been given an opportunity for living in custody through mutual consent with the victim);

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Order to Attend Courses;