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

On December 31, 2013, at least 08:10, the Defendant damaged the front left glass (1m, vertical length 1m) of the market price owned by the victim E in a way of destroying the brick, which is a dangerous object that he has prepared in advance, due to the fact that the drinking drinking value was too high in the drinking house near the Djuk point on the day before the day, at the same time, the Defendant damaged the front left glass (1m, length 1m) of the market price of the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Even though there are many criminal records of the same or similar crime against the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the act of committing the instant crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

It is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognized the facts of the crime and misunderstanding in depth is divided.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the age, health and environment of the accused, etc., and the records and arguments, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.