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

1. Around February 17, 2018, the Defendant changed from the office of the Association of Removal and Residents in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, and from the office of the victim D ( South, 57 years old) to the office of the Association of Removal and the office of the victim D (North, 57 years old).

For the reason that he did not have a drinking face twice, and assaulted him such as taking clothes and walking clothes, etc. on several occasions.

2. On February 17, 2018, the Defendant damaged the property of the victim by putting the front wheelchairs, which the victim parked on the top of the office of the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the office of the above removal and immigration federation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. On-site CCTV CDs and on-site CCTV CDs [ though the Defendant was found to have dried up and controled a victim’s d's flaps, there was no fact when the victim’s face was taken by drinking, and the wheel chairs exceeded the wheel, but the Defendant was unaware of the degree of the victim’s name.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant sought from the victim in addition to the defendant's walking.

In addition, insofar as the wheel chairs prior to the judgment of the defendant at the time of committing the crime was aware of the ownership of another person, the establishment of the crime of damage to property is not hindered even if it was unaware of the fact that it was the victim.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that he was in a state of assistance in committing the crime. However, considering the above evidence and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, the Defendant was in a state where he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime.

It is not visible.

The above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted in entirety.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 260 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 260 of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and Article 260 of the Criminal Act.