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

On November 21, 2016, from around 00:12 to 00:32 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol from the victim D’s “E Innb,” operated by Kimpo-si, and returned to the third floor corridor, and (b) had the entrance door 203 being opened by the customer; (c) opened a door after having opened the 201 entrance being opened by another customer; and (d) the victim confirmed the above 201 door as CCTV was able to interview the victim and the Defendant; (b) the Defendant was able to influen the second floor of the 2nd floor and the third floor.

C. C. C. H. Domination, which is called C. C. H., caused disturbance to the victim’s operation by force, such as seeing the urine on the stairs between the second and third floors.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Investigation report (specific date, time, etc. of damage);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by capturing CCTVs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) 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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment] Suspension of duties, and the sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the theory of records and changes, such as the motive and background of the crime, the means of the crime, the degree of interference with duties, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the records and changes in the mitigated area (i.e., January to August) / [the person who has been specially mitigated] / [including efforts to recover from damage] / [the sentence] unfavorable: the nature of the crime is not good; the record of the punishment for the same crime is two times more favorable: the victim recognizes and reflects the crime; the victim does not want the punishment; the victim does not want to do so; and the punishment is determined as ordered.