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

On November 5, 2016, the Defendant damaged objects used by public offices by walking off the water, on the ground that the road and delivery are distinguished from the N On the N on the street, and that one drum, which is a structure installed at the branch office of the Dong department with a emulative view, is inconvenient to the access of the vehicle, in order to prevent the entry of the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police with regard to theO;

1. Accusations, accusationss, and enlightenments pertaining to the destruction of public facilities;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes attaching video data;

1. Relevant Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendant asserts that there was no purpose of damage, since the structure that the public official was promised to move to a certain extent among the reasons for sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62(1)).

However, the crime of damage to public goods under Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act is not established if it intentionally damages or conceals public goods, or otherwise impairs their utility, and it does not require the purpose of damage.

Since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant intentionally gets off the above structures two times, thereby distinguishing the road and delivery, and has impaired the utility of the above structures installed to prevent the entry into the vehicle, there is no problem in the establishment of a crime of damage to public goods.

There is no ground for the promise to move the above structure at the time of the instant case.

The reason for sentencing [the scope of the recommended punishment] Where the value of the article that has been invalidated or destroyed is minor, the scope of sentencing comparison between the sentences and the recommended sentences shall be from one month to eight months [the sentence] - normal conditions against the defendant even if unreasonable results have occurred due to the structure installed in the viewing area, it shall be corrected according to legitimate procedures even though it is not easy to do so.