A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On August 20, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. in the Daejeon District Court’s support for the Daejeon District Court, and on March 22, 2014, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence in the branch of the Daejeon District Court.

[2] On December 31, 2010, the Defendant was ordered to attach an electronic tracking device for a location of five years in the Daegu District Court’s gender support for the Defendant, and was attached with a location tracking device from April 4, 201.

피고인은 2016. 11. 8. 23:43 경 논산시 시민로 294번 길 27에 있는 대전보호 관찰소 논산 지소에서, 피고인의 보호 관찰 담당 관인 B으로부터 “ 전자 발찌 배터리를 충전하라.” 는 전화를 받자, 화가 나 위 대전보호 관찰소 논산 지소로 찾아가 위 B에게 “ 씨 발.” 이라고 욕설을 하면서 그곳에 있던 철재 의자를 집어던져 책상 유리와 철재 의자를 부수고, 계속하여 피고인이 보관하고 있던 전자장치( 충전 크래 들, 휴대장치용 어댑터 )를 바닥에 집어던져 합계 326,210원 상당의 수리비가 들 정도로 유리, 의자, 전자장치를 손괴하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the use of goods by public offices, thereby harming their utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to B;

1. Details of goods damaged;

1. A written decision on an attachment order;

1. On-site photographs (the offices of the branch offices of the Daejeon Probation Office);

1. Previous convictions: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (report on a repeated offense, etc.);

1. Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 141 of the choice of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is against the Defendant’s wrongness, and there is no favorable circumstance, such as compensating for damage and making a full agreement with the side of the branch of the Daejeon Probationary Office. However, the Defendant again committed the instant crime without among those despite the period of repeated crimes, and the Defendant is already under the period of repeated crime before the occurrence of the instant case.