The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a second-class person with autism who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

On June 16, 2015, around 15:30 on June 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) left a D-type car parked by the victim C (59 years of age) in the parking lot adjacent to the sports lot adjacent to Samsung-dong Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; and (b) caused the defects on the front side of the driver’s seat and the main set.

In this way, the defendant eventually damaged the victim's property equivalent to 2,324,760 won of the repair cost and damaged the victim's utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a psychological and evaluation report and a certificate of disability diagnosis;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act to mitigate mental and physical weakness;

1. Penalty fine of 200,000 won to be suspended;

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

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of this case was committed under the influence of mental and physical disorder Grade II), the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss due to a pulmonary disorder at the time of committing the crime of this case.

However, in light of the evidence presented above, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, the investigation agency, and the defendant's statement in this court, and his attitude, etc., the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the disorder in self-defeasion at the time of the crime in this case.

Although it can be seen, it is difficult to view that the ability has reached the state of loss.

Therefore, the defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.