A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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

On July 26, 2016, the Defendant, at the third floor parking lot of the building B located in Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 26, 2016, provided that the Defendant used double parking of the victim C (61 cm) at the third floor parking lot of the building B located in the Dong-gu, Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in a view of a dangerous object that was kept in the between the vehicles of the Defendant and the between the vehicles (80 m

In addition, the part of the window and door of the car driving seat owned by the victim was unloaded, and the victim's property was damaged so that the repair cost is equivalent to 60,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. E statements;

1. A list of seizure records (voluntary submission), and a list of seizure;

1. On-site and damaged photographs;

1. Application of investigation reports (CCTV image), investigation reports (Submission of photographs and specifications of damage inflicted on the victim's vehicle) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [the scope of recommendations] [the grounds for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [the scope of recommendations]] There is no person (a person who is subject to special sentencing in August 1-1 and June) in the basic area (a person who is habitually, repeated crimes, special damage, etc.). [the person who is subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] is recognized by the Defendant’s mistake, and the extent of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively insignificant.

However, it has not been completely recovered from the damage caused by the instant crime until now; the crime of this case is not good in light of the applicable law and its circumstances; the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime or violent crime several times; and the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime or violent crime; and the sentence like the order shall be determined by taking into account the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.