A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four 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

At around 01:05 on March 22, 2020, the Defendant, at the entrance of the “D” operated by the Victim C in Suwon-si B, destroyed the wall, stairs, and glass door owned by the victim by the Defendant, by leaving two stones (one 15cm in diameter, approximately 25cm in 15cm), which are dangerous things at the entrance of the Defendant, from the point of view, on the ground that the noise was sing down, and was at the entrance of the “D”, so that the noise was sing down to the underground level, and damaged the repair cost under the market value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as field photographs of C written statements;

1. Relevant Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act are as follows, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by taking full account of the following circumstances.

The crime of this case committed at a disadvantage of the defendant under the influence of alcohol and damages business facilities by gathering stones on the victim's business place without any particular reason. In light of the implements, circumstances, etc. of the crime, the nature of the crime is not good.

The defendant has committed the same violent crime and has been sentenced to a fine only once.

Damage suffered by the victim was restored.

There is no circumstance that the defendant made efforts to recover damage to the victim or that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim.

The favorable normal defendant recognized his mistake and expressed his attitude against him.

In 204, there was no record of punishment for the same violent crime for 16 years in addition to the fine imposed once due to the same violent crime, and there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine until the crime of this case was committed.