A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 4, 2017, at around 12:40, the Defendant damaged the property by shouldering the door door door door of an office in the city, which was held for the reason that the Defendant was refused to open a door at the entrance of the shop conference office in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, the twoth floor of the merchants' meeting, which was managed by D, due to the Defendant’s refusal to open a door.

2. Around May 4, 2017, the Defendant of special intimidation, around 14:45, threatened the victim by threatening the victim to the improvement, which is a dangerous object used in his/her hand (45cm in total length, 200cm in length), on the ground that he/she was demanded by the victim F to remove the damaged vehicle in front of the vehicle parked by the victim F in Seongbuk-gu E on the street.

Summary of Evidence

Witness

The application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes to each of the reports of investigation by the F, G, and H’s legal statement F, and H’s written statement by the police report against G

1. Article 366 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of destroying property), Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of threatening to carry dangerous articles);

2. Selection of penalty penalty:

3. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes are crimes committed by the Defendant, including two times of punishment due to violent crimes, and the crime of this case was committed during the period of suspension of execution due to interference with the performance of official duties (the period of suspension of execution was now passed). While the damage itself is not severe, the Defendant was deemed to have caused disturbance in the C building several times, it seems that the victims and commercial merchants had not suffered a significant pain.

Nevertheless, the defendant denies the crime and did not make any effort to recover damage.

Although the defendant is old, there is a high possibility of recidivism because he continues to commit the same kind of crime such as violence or interference with business even after 2010.