Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On January 9, 2018, the Defendant’s statement of “04:38 warning” in the indictment in light of around 05:28 on January 9, 2018 is obvious that it is a clerical error, and thus is corrected.
The property was damaged to cover the total amount of KRW 1,50,000,000, in addition to the market value by opening the coffee self-speaker, which was owned by the victim, in hand, on the ground that the dispute with the customer was brought about in the 'D cafeteria' restaurant operated by the Young-si B victim C, and opening the 2nd, Doz, 1, 1, 1, and 50,000,000 in total.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. C’s statement;
1. A report on internal investigation:
1. 112 Notification to a department related to the report of the case;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the scene and photographs of damaged articles;
1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors shall be considered in favor of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing);
1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] of the grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Violence, Etc., community service, and lecture attendance [the scope of punishment] [one month to six months] of the mitigation area (a person with a special mitigation] [the scope of sentence] comparison between the punishment and the recommended sentence: one month to six months [the sentence]: The sentence is imposed in 13 months (including the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, the crime of bodily injury, the crime of interference with the performance of duties, the crime of interference with the performance of public duties, and the crime of destruction of property]; the history of punishment for violent crimes (the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, the crime of injury, the crime of interference with the performance of public duties, and the crime of destruction of property] are not relatively more severe than the extent of damage favorable to the defendant. The court recognizes the