A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

1. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00 on May 10, 2016, at the “E” clothes 500 won or 1,000 won (hereinafter “E”) operated by the victim D (the age of 51) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) however, the Defendant exceeded the 500 won or 1,000 won, which the victim refused to do so; (c) while the Defendant stated that “in-house is a know-how,” said that he would act as if he would inflict any danger and injury if the victim did not know of the money, and (d) received 500 won from the drinking victim, namely, in cash,

2. On May 12, 2016, at around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) visited the said philosophical source in order to remove money as set forth in paragraph 1 in front of the “H” philosophical source operated by the victim G (the age of 60) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu; (b) however, the philolosophical source entrance was set off, which is the victim owned by the victim, thereby destroying the above philophical source glass (a 1 meter, 1.6 meters in length, 1.6 meters in length) so that the market cost can be caused by unflosophing.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the part concerning the destruction and damage of property);

1. Entry of the protocol of examination of a witness I in the third protocol of trial;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D, J, K, and G Preparation;

1. The written statement of D/C for the damage of the entrance glass door shall be admitted as admissible, since D shall be admitted as being made under particularly reliable circumstances in light of the entries in the protocol of examination of witness with respect to the witness I, the entries in J and K as well as the form and content of the written statement, etc.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe the witness D’s legal statement in light of the statements, J and K’s respective statements, the witness I’s witness examination protocol, the witness’s attitude and the process of making the witness D’s statement in the court.

D does not give testimony to the police officer in charge in the court.