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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 15, 2019, at around 01:05, the Defendant: (a) 01:05 on the front side of the detached house located in the Guri-si B, for the reason that it is not good to see the workplace rent and alcohol, and (b) destroyed the car repair cost in a way that the victim C, who is the owner of the victim C, was parked there.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A E-document;

1. Investigation report (to hear victim C telephone statements);

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to four years and six months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Each crime of destroying and damaging property (the determination of types) shall be based on the general criteria for the crime of destroying and damaging property (the first type) (the person subject to special mitigation), who is not subject to punishment (the scope of recommending punishment), from 6 months of imprisonment;

(b) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: From one month to nine months (=six months to six months x 1/2).

3. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, who was parked on a street on the ground that the Defendant would be bad in fluoring and drinking fluoring with workplace rents, is in line with the two vehicles, and thus, the crime is not likely to be committed in light of the circumstances, methods, and patterns of the crime.

Although the defendant had been sentenced to a fine of eight times due to the crime of violence, in this case, he has re-influences to violence, and more severe punishment is required to prevent the defendant from repeating the crime.

I would like to say.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects the crime of this case, and does not focus on property damage caused by damage, and the fact that the defendant agreed with the victims is in excess of the fine.