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

The defendant is a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim B.

On October 7, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 00:47 on October 7, 2019, at a residential area located in C building D, laid down a household, such as a fluor, etc. with approximately KRW 800,000,00 of the market price owned by the victim, and laid down a brick, which is a dangerous object that was moved to the above E-dong parking lot and was moved to the above E-dong parking lot, and broken down a brick, which is a vehicle with approximately KRW 19,00,000,000 of the market price owned by the victim, of the above vehicle’s auxiliary stone, front glass, front glass, rear glass, and rear-side window of the driver’s seat.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous things and damaged the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of the statutes governing the contents of the victim's pictures and dialogue messages;

1. Relevant Article 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The application of the sentencing guidelines for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the suspended sentence [the decision on the types] the application of the sentencing guidelines for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act to repeated crimes, special damage and damage [the category 1] There is no repeated crimes, special damage and damage [the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment] [ the scope of the recommended punishment] basic area, the decision on the sentence for six months to one year: The degree of damage to property suffered by the victim for the suspended sentence in

Failure to receive an accusation from the victim;

(A) The Defendant had already been punished two times (2013 and 2019) due to the crime of causing property damage before committing the instant crime (201 and 2019). The Defendant had a record of being punished two times (2013 and 2019) due to the crime of causing property damage before committing the instant crime.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake.

After the closing of the instant argument, the victim is the victim.