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

On June 7, 2020, at around 03:33, the Defendant: (a) destroyed and damaged the victim’s ownership at a convenience store located outside the convenience store under the influence of alcohol in front of the D convenience store operated by the victim C, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, by using the victim’s use of plastics in the amount of KRW 40,000, which was located outside the convenience store and by twice the floor.

After having taken measures for returning home by the police who was called for the above crime, at around 04:15 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) sought at the above place; and (b) destroyed the victim’s ownership by putting an empty beer, which is a dangerous object in a garbage tank under the influence of alcohol; and (c) destroying the victim’s outer wall glass in a way that the victim’s market price is 450,000 won by leaving four times the convenience store glass.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Application of 9 Acts and subordinate statutes to four copies of on-site photographs and damaged photographs, a quotation photograph, and to take off on-site CCTV images;

1. Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts and Articles 369(1) of the Act on the Selection of Punishment (Overallly, Determination of Imprisonment) [In the event that the court recognizes the criminal facts charged as concurrent crimes by ex officio and with respect to the criminal facts charged as concurrent crimes, the court recognizes the criminal facts as they are, even if only the legal evaluation as to the number of crimes is applied as a single comprehensive crime, since it does not affect the defense of the defendant, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, it may be punished as a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987). A prosecutor may be punished as a single comprehensive crime without any amendment of the indictment, by deeming the act of damaging the property of the facts charged in this case as a substantive concurrent crime and the act of destroying special property as applicable provisions of Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act. However, it is reasonable to view that each act of this case as an act is repeatedly connected to the same victim under the single and continuous criminal intent.