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

1. On October 7, 2019, around 15:25, the Defendant intrusiond the Victim C’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu, and invaded upon the Victim’s house by entering the Victim’s house, beyond his wall to avoid contact by the Defendant, by avoiding contact.

2. The Defendant damaged property damage at the same time and place as set forth in the above paragraph (1) of this Article, and the victim did not open the entrance door, and the victim’s voice within the victim’s house, and thereby damaging property owned by the victim so that the market price can be 35,000 won in total by damaging the front door glass by walking the front door door several times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A report on investigation (to hear statements of reported witnesses);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on collection structure and photographs of the entrance, photographs, two copies of photographs, reports on 112 cases, and receipts and photographs;

1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the proviso of Article 62-2(1) and (2) of the Probation Criminal Act is deemed to have been destroyed by the Defendant’s entrance into the victim’s house gate beyond the wall and walking the front door door. The crime of this case appears to have caused considerable mental shock and fear by the crime of this case, the damage suffered by the victim is not recovered, and the Defendant committed again the crime of this case even though there were multiple violence crimes, including the Defendant’s punishment, even though they had been committed by multiple violences, and thus, the crime of this case is not weak.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant led to a crime and reflects against the defendant, and that the damage to property is not much significant.

In addition, this shall be applied.