A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 23, 2017, at around 22:00, the Defendant: (a) removed a locking device of approximately KRW 700,000,00 in the market price of the victim’s possession with a net value, which is a dangerous object, and damaged the building D No. 20, Seocheon-si building E (39:00) by stating that “not to sell” is “not to sell” using a paint on the front door.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a report on internal death (referring to an investigation into damage, such as a victim gate), eight copies of the damaged photograph, and a receipt

1. Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant’s reason for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is late, and the court of this case acknowledges and reflects erroneousness.

The amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not significant.

However, it seems that the following circumstances of sentencing are very unfavorable to the defendant, and that the defendant should be isolated from the victim for a considerable period of time, and the defendant's punishment is inevitable.

In addition, in consideration of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial of this case, the sentence shall be determined as per the order.

(1) The motive and method of committing a crime: The defendant has been harassing the victim by taking a first race, sucking him/her, and making telephone calls more than six times until he/she continuously finds the victim and open door his/her door after he/she has been faced with the victim for six years prior to the occurrence of the crime.

In order to dispose of the victim's office in the mind that the victim would be a director, the trucked victim attached the franchise card " while exercising the right of retention" to the pentle parking lot where the victim resides, and subsequently committed the crime of this case.

The Defendant removed the locking part of the locking part of the front door due to the network value, and entered the front door into the front door into the door as “the impossibility of trading”, but the crime shown in the means and method of committing the crime is very poor.

In the case of this case, the court of this case committed the crime of this case about to have a written contract for the trade of the victim's residence.

statement is made.