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.

Punishment of the crime

On August 1, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,00 by the Incheon District Court, and on September 1, 2011, the Incheon District Court was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million for the crime of injury, and on June 11, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 for the same kind of power, such as the crime of injury, in addition to the issuance of a summary order of KRW 500,00 for the crime of assault by the Incheon District Court.

At around 03:30 on January 14, 2013, the Defendant habitually destroyed the entrance door of the said establishment by cutting off the entrance door to approximately KRW 450,00,00,00,00 for repair costs, as a problem of the previous drinking value in front of the Eju shop managed by the victim D, who was in the second floor, Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul. In order to resist the problem, the Defendant reconvened the foregoing drinking house again, but did not contact the said house, thereby damaging the entrance door of the said establishment more than KRW 450,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Written estimate;

1. Each photograph;

1. Previous records: Criminal records, investigation reports, copies of each judgment, and inquiry and inquiry reports;

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the frequency of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the repeated crimes of the same kind in the judgment;

1. Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense: Article 2 (1) 1 of the same Act;

1. Mitigation: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: The defendant asserts that the defendant's argument regarding Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (normally considering the agreement with the victim, the amount of damage, and the reflection of the defendant) was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. According to the records, it is acknowledged that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability. In light of the defendant's usual amount of the crime, circumstances leading to the crime, means and methods of the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime