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

1. On July 20, 2010, the Defendant, on July 20, 2010, removed from the wall the first race attached to the front door of the front door of the victim D, who is the Defendant’s mother or the victim’s father, who is the Defendant’s mother or the victim’s father, on July 20, 2010.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property equivalent to 180,000 won in the city.

2. On October 23, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol in front of the “Fju point” located in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, 23:25 on October 23, 201; (b) was under dispute with the victim G (the age of 47) who is the Defendant’s deadly living together with the victim on the ground that he did not disclose his property; (c) was under the influence of alcohol, and (d) was under the influence of the victim’s right hand hand hand over; and (d) was under the influence of the victim’s flap, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment by spathing the victim’s flaf.

3. 2013. 5. 22.자 재물손괴 피고인은 2013. 5. 22. 01:00경 강릉시 H에 있는 피고인의 친동생인 피해자 I의 집 현관문 앞에서 술에 취해 피해자가 문을 열어주지 않는다는 이유로 순간 격분하여 거실 유리문을 잡아 흔들어 유리창을 깨고, 현관문 옆에 있던 플라스틱 우유 상자를 방충망으로 집어 던져 방충망을 부쉈다.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property equivalent to the market price of 200,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to J and D;

1. Written estimate and receipt;

1. Photographs of damaged parts;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written diagnosis;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the most serious punishment);

1. Although the defendant has been sentenced to a fine of the same kind twice under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code, there is no criminal record above the suspension of execution, and the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant.