The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendants shall be public officials of Grade VI in agricultural service who reside in the residential area and work in the Gangwon-do Office B.

On March 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on March 24, 2015, around 00:10, the Defendant destroyed the property worth KRW 135,000 at the market price by destroying the number-based strings installed on the entrance of the entrance of the Defendant, and then destroying the property of KRW 135,00 at the market price by destroying the number-based strings of 10,000,000, which are the victim D (the 61 year old)’s residence, the spouse of C, in order to conduct talking and talking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. A fine of 500,000 won for which the sentence is suspended; and

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. The meaning of a suspended sentence: A system which suspends the suspension of sentence for a specified period and is deemed to be acquitted after the specified period has elapsed;

Effect of suspension of sentence: it shall be considered to be acquitted after two years have elapsed from the date of receiving the suspension of sentence (Article 60 of the Criminal Act). Lapse of the suspension of sentence: The suspended sentence shall be imposed when a person who receives the suspension of sentence becomes subject to a judgment of suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment, or when

(Article 61 of the Criminal Act). The reason for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing") is that the defendant led to visit the residence of D, the spouse of C, who is the spouse of C, who is not only the victim, to return the former deposit amount of KRW 130 million but also to trust the promise to return the former deposit of KRW 130,000,000, and entered into a new lease contract. However, although C did not comply with it but also did not comply with it, the defendant was able to visit the former deposit of KRW 12,360,000,000.