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

The defendant from July 9, 2012 to the same year.

8. Until July, the victims G, H, and I operated in Jeonnam-gun, Nam-gun, Y, and F, in the deep-sea fishing ground, and in the privately-owned fish farm, J have the tamper deduct the water from the above fish farm to the tamper, permit K to permit the tamper to the tamper and tamper, and L to the tamper to the tamper and market value of the victims in the fish farm, and to damage the victims' property by allowing the tamper to the tamper and to the tamper, to the tamper, to the tamper, to the public, and to the public.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by witnesses G and H in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Entry of witnesses M in the third protocol of trial;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The statement of the defendant (Evidence No. 115 pages of the evidence record);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of photograph (Evidence No. 68, Evidence Record No. 261);

1. Articles 366, 34 (1), and 33 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following grounds for sentencing)

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted: (i) the Defendant and the defense counsel did not have tending, new, and private water storage as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the former Navy D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant land”); and (ii) even if there were tending, etc.

Even if the defendant's act does not constitute an intentional act but a criminal punishment due to the damage of property due to negligence, and the defendant asserts that it is not illegal since the defendant committed the same act as the criminal facts according to the order to reinstate the Korea Rural Community Corporation.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the evidence prior to the existence of urgara, vegetable, and cat, namely, whether G was dead on the photograph (Evidence No. 319 pages of the evidence record) submitted by G on September 1, 2012, and (2) the Defendant prepared and submitted.