A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 18, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) and completed the execution of the sentence on October 19, 2018.

At around 18:40 on January 8, 2019, the Defendant demanded the guard room in the Dong-dong, Seoul, Dong-gu, Seoul to seek a female photographic book, but the Defendant was refused to do so. However, the Defendant was able to fluorize the book, and the Defendant was fluorily fluorddly fluorddddly fluordddding the door of the ward room in the above B room, and fludddddding TV fluding out.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each investigation report (No. 4,5, 11 in order);

1. A working report;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, investigation reports (suspects' previous records and confirmation dates), and individual confinement status Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. As to the assertion of counsel under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant had a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

According to the records, although the defendant was a disabled person of Grade III with intellectual disability and received a mental therapy due to the past "sculatory body with behavioral disorder", in light of the motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case and the details of the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

In the course of sentencing, public goods have been damaged during the period of punishment, and the nature of the crime is not good.

The fact that there was a record of punishment for the same crime, and that the crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant shows an attitude against the defendant when recognizing the crime of this case, and the defendant shows an attitude against him.