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

The defendant is put to the victim B (n, 41 years of age).

On May 8, 2018, at around 20:30 on May 20, 2018, the Defendant thought that the wife of the victim, who was the D's head of the building, in front of the office of the victim, in Busan Northern-gu C's building D, had his wife fightingd, and opened his door door, which is a dangerous object in possession on the ground that there was no reaction, and damaged the entrance door and the door so that the repair cost can be paid.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Entry of the defendant in part of his/her prosecutorial statement;

1. Part of the police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged literature photographs and criminal tools photographs;

1. Relevant Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion that Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Act on Probation and Order to Attend [a prosecutor is seeking forfeiture of the lost value seized, but the above net value in light of Article 830 (2) of the Civil Act is deemed joint ownership by the defendant and F, and it is difficult to view that the above net value does not belong to a person other than the defendant and it does not belong to a person other than the defendant, and thus no confiscation shall be sentenced] is asserted that the defendant and defense counsel did not destroy

However, in this court, E, upon receiving the report at the time, testified to the effect that “the Defendant continued to be the deceased, scars, scars, and she tried to prevent the scars when she tried to do any more than once after getting out of her,” and the Defendant voluntarily stated in the prosecutor’s office that “if she was the police after she became the police, she would return to the scars of the scars by scars while explaining such circumstances, she returned to the scars of the scars.” The decision is actually made according to the damaged scars.