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.

On May 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:30, at a Dara parking lot located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, caused the victim’s E-owned vehicles parked therein to move the Defendant’s vehicle, and (b) demanded the victim to get off the vehicle at the victim’s home; (c) on the other hand, the victim demanded the victim to get off the vehicle; (d) but on the other hand, finding out the vehicle at the home due to the problem of parking from the victim was caused by the victim’s invasion of privacy, thereby damaging the victim’s fee of repairing KRW 2.60,00 by walking off the vehicle at both sides of the victim’s vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness D’s legal statement (the above witness is specifically and clearly stated about the situation at the time of the instant case and is credibility in his statement).

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Investigation report (a copy of a receipt submitted to victim D);

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below) is not divided into one another, and the fact that the defendant did not faithfully engage in the investigation process and the initial stage of trial, which is disadvantageous to the defendant, is the primary offender who has no criminal record that the defendant would become an adult, and the fact that the damage in this case was not serious, shall be determined by taking into account the factors favorable to the defendant as factors for sentencing.