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

On March 2, 2013, at around 00:20, the Defendant, along with the victim D (n, 56 years of age) who is the wife of the Defendant, destroyed the building in question so that the Defendant would need to repair expenses in a non-repair, destroyed the building by drinking alcohol, and suffered from the victim 2 and 3 degrees of heart 2 and 3 degrees (20-29% of the body surface) images (20-29% of the body surface) of the body of the Defendant, while drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol on the third floor of the Seo-gu Incheon E, Incheon, where the Defendant was living together with the victim D (n, 56 years of age) and other female problems arising from the Defendant’s cell telephone list between the victim and the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Statement of opinion, etc.;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 164 (2) (main sentence) and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment.

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Article 62-2 (1) and the proviso to Article 62-2 (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, Etc.;

1. The sentencing guidelines are not applicable to a crime instituted before July 1, 2013, in which the sentencing guidelines have become effective for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act. The crime of this case is merely a crime of this case where the collapse was spreaded to the body of the wife on the ground that the crime of this case was committed, and the crime of this case is very poor, and the Defendant appears to have been able to threaten or assault the victim by drinking while under the influence of alcohol even though there was a marital relationship with the victim that should be respected based on mutual trust with the victim. The crime of this case also was under the influence of alcohol.