A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

At around 04:00 on March 6, 2013, the Defendant discovered the existence of a victim’s vehicle D in front of the victim’s house, and laid the victim’s house gate on the ground that it does not open while opening the victim’s house in the vicinity of the victim’s house, the Defendant: (a) provided a bath to “D weather b.”; and (b) provided a dangerous object, Aluminium camping view, which is a dangerous object, installed the victim’s house gate glass room with the victim’s house 3.50,00 won at the market price, thereby destroying two glass windows and two shocked.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act - The crime of this case is likely to damage the glass view, which is a dangerous object by finding at night the victim's house, and the crime of this case is bad. The crime of this case is deemed to have committed the crime of this case even though the defendant was subject to criminal punishment (two times of suspension of execution, one time of fine) for the same kind of crime. The defendant committed the crime of this case in addition, even though he/she was subject to criminal punishment (two times of suspension of execution, one time of fine). The defendant's mistake is recognized and contradictory to himself/herself - The crime of this case is judged as ordered by the disposition for more than the reason that