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

On August 17, 2017, the Defendant found the victim D's residence located in Busan Jin-gu C and 2 Busan Jin-gu around August 17, 2017, and destroyed five copies of the market price which is the victim's non-contestably, because E, the husband of the victim, who was the husband of the victim, was in an internal-related relationship with himself, did not move to himself.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports, etc. and photographs of damaged articles;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and observation was that the Defendant received a summary order twice in 2012 by intrusion upon the victim’s residence in the year of 2012, and on July 25, 2017, the Defendant entered the same place as the instant case and was investigated as a crime of intrusion upon residence (as for a summary order of KRW 2 million on August 21, 2017, a request for a summary order of KRW 2 million is filed), and the Defendant committed the instant crime again in 20 days and more: Provided, That the Defendant did not have a criminal record except the foregoing criminal record, the Defendant appears to have discharged damage caused by the destruction of the instant case, the Defendant appears not to repeat the crime, and the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, etc., and all of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial process, shall be determined as per the order.