A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[The Defendant, as the mother of the victim C, was in conflict with each other because the victim did not give his money to himself.

[Detailed Criminal Facts]

1. Damage to special property;

A. On August 8, 2017, at around 08:00, the Defendant: (a) entered a restaurant in front of the cafeteria’s business affairs of the limited partnership company E, operated by the victim C, at the time of resident stay at D; (b) but (c) did not enter the cafeteria’s entrance as the cafeteria’s entrance was corrected; and (d) damaged the above entrance, which is equivalent to KRW 500,000,000,000,

B. On August 10, 2017, the Defendant corrected the entrance of the above office at the same place as around 09:45, the Defendant: (a) reported that F, an employee of the company, was taking advantage of other keyss; and (b) damaged F, which is a dangerous object, by putting the victim C’s market value equivalent to KRW 200,000,000 in favor of the trustor for office use.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1-b. At the time, on the foregoing grounds, by acting as if he would inflict any injury on the victim by: (a) having the victim F (F) who is an employee of the Company F (F) of the Company B for the said reasons, referring to one’s complaint; (b) having been installed in front of the victim under each item, which is a dangerous object; and (c) having the victim get off the clients subsequent to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement made by the defendant on the second public trial date (limited to the crimes of damaging respective special property);

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. A written statement of G and F;

1. Each internal investigation report (No. 4,5) and investigation report (No. 6 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. The results of reproduction in Chapter 1 of the CD [the defendant and his defense counsel did not bring a special intimidation against the crime of intimidation, and the defendant did not have any intention to threaten the victim. However, the defendant and his defense counsel did not bring a stimul in favor of each item, but did not have any intention to threaten the victim.

The argument is asserted.

The act of notifying harm in the crime of murdering or intimidation is normal in the language.