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

1. 재물 손괴 피고인은 2017. 4. 14. 15:30 경 성남시 중원구 C에 있는 피해자 D이 운영하는 E 여관에서 술에 취하여 피해자 소유인 위 여관의 202호 및 203호 출입문을 발로 걷어 차 움푹 들어가게 하여 수리비용 합계 39만 원이 들도록 손괴하였다.

2. At the time and place specified in paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance door in his/her hand, as described in paragraph 1; (b) opened the entrance in his/her place; (c) obstructed the victim’s in his/her insular business by avoiding disturbance between approximately 30 minutes and 16:00 on the same day, such as taking the victim D, the victim’s wife F, the victim’s wife G, and the Defendant’s desire to be “shot,” and “shot,” the victim’s insular business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62 (1)