beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant's Dong Dong Dong C, who was the birth of the victim D, was a school system from November 201 to E, and from the victim's side, was suffering from marriage in opposition to the victim's side. In the end, on February 6, 2013, there was a suicide by being administered in the Vietnam War No. 1206 at Jeju, a residence around 13:45 on February 6, 2013.
On February 7, 2013, at around 23:00, the Defendant entered the “H restaurant” operated by the victim located in G in Jeju, with a small gate, and subsequently, concluded that the victim’s suicide was caused and the victim did not comply with the promise to discuss subsequent measures against the suicide, and that the agreement was not complied with, the Defendant removed the erobbbbbial (80 cm length, 45 cm in length on the day, 80 cm in length) which is a dangerous object located there.
As a result, the Defendant destroyed the 101,70,00 won, including 35,00,000 won, 729,000,000, and 675,000,000, more than 1,100,000, 1,000, and 2,000,000, in total of 2,000, 1,196,363, and more than 1,196,363, such as 1,19,70, and 363, of the 2,00 television market.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Each police statement made to D or I;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each field photograph and written estimate;
1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 366 of the Criminal Act;
1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1148, Jan. 1, 201; 201Do1148, Jan. 2, 20
1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (recognating the grounds for discretionary mitigation), the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant had a mental and physical state due to psychological shock at the time of committing the instant crime. As such, the background and circumstances of the instant crime.