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. On August 3, 2017, around 23:20 on August 3, 2017, the Defendant assaulted victims, such as the victim F (51 tax) and the part of the victim F (51 tax) in front of the “E cafeteria” restaurant operated by Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “E”), who were punished for trial costs as a matter of parking, such as the victim F (51 tax), the chest part of the victim F (hereinafter referred to as the “victim F), the face of the victim D, and the chest part (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”).

2. The Defendant damaged property, on the ground that the time, at the time, at the place specified in the above paragraph 1 above, the damage interfered with the cabping, thereby leaving the part of the front offender in front of the GNF Soon car owned by the victim F, who was parked in the above restaurant, as the victim D owner in the above restaurant, thereby damaging the above vehicle to the extent of 685,650 won, such as the exchange of the front offender, and destroying the above vehicle and destroying the bridge of the person who was not the market owner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and D;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against F or D;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Images and caps of crime prevention CCTV images and images of CDs;

1. Application of written estimate of general repair costs to statutes;

1. Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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 stay of execution (The following factors shall be considered in favor of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order, while recognizing the damage of property among the facts charged, the defendant and his/her defense counsel stated that each violence was committed by the victims and the defendant was committed against the victims, and the defendant did not assault the victims. However, each of the above evidences, in particular, the investigation agency of the victims and this court.