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

1. On December 14, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 00:16, in the neighboring street of Suwon-si, Suwon-si B; (b) without any justifiable reason, caused damage to the market price by cutting off the light sunlight of the Dststunta’s seat owned by the victim C (year 36) to drinking, thereby causing damage to the unpaid repair cost.

2. Around 03:30 on January 6, 2020, the Defendant marbling the face of the victim E (the age of 50) from the water station toilet in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 924, with no reason, when drinking the face of the victim E (the age of 50) in the water station, and breathing the breath, and led the balle to the candles, leading the victim's face and the chest part to the drinking part.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol C of the protocol of statement to E to the CCTV video image Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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 crime of causing property damage heavier than punishment);

1. The reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for the sentencing below) are as follows, taking into account the following circumstances, and the various circumstances, including the age, character and conduct, the environment of the defendant, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, to determine the sentence as ordered.

Until committing each of the crimes of this case, the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times, including punishment for the same kind of crime and the crime of different species.

Damage suffered by victims was recovered.

There is no circumstance that the defendant made efforts for the recovery of damage by the victims, and it was not accepted from the victims.

A favorable normal defendant shows his attitude to recognize his fault in whole and reflect his fault.

The degree of damage is not serious.