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

From the Suwon District Court on September 29, 2014 to January 28, 2015, the Defendant is prohibited from approaching within 100 meters from the victim B’s dwelling dwelling in the victim B by the Suwon District Court on January 28, 2015.

‘The victim' was ordered to protect the victim.

1. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol on December 20:45, 2014, found the victim’s residence and did not comply with a victim’s protective order; (b) collected plastic water circulations from the victim on the ground that the victim continued to return to the victim; and (c) damaged the market value, which is the victim’s possession, by destroying the outside glass window of the victim’s residence.

2. The Defendant, who committed a crime on December 6, 2014, was drunk on December 6, 2014, and was found in the victim’s residence and did not comply with a victim protection order again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Victim protection orders;

1. Application of the 112 reported mobilization and treatment marks, on-site photographs statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the relevant Act and Articles 63 (1) 2 and 55-2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, Article 36 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant was approaching the victim in violation of the victim protection order issued by the court and the victim was damaged by destroying the glass of the victim’s residence, and thus, the Defendant appears to have made considerable efforts to improve the relationship with the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have expressed his/her intention not to be punished by the victim at an investigative agency, and the Defendant was recognized by his/her mistake, taking into account the circumstances that may be considered, such as the fact that the Defendant was aware of his/her mistake, and all other factors of sentencing indicated in records