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

1. At night, around 03:00 on February 3, 2020, the Defendant: (a) intruded into the victim C’s funeral hall operated by the victim C, which was not corrected, and the first floor of the underground floor and the office located in the main room; and (b) stolen it with 138,000 won at the market price of the victim’s possession; and (c) with 138,000 won at the price of the victim’s possession.

2. Around 05:00 on February 4, 2020, the Defendant: (a) intruded by a entrance open to the second floor of the second floor of the D funeral hall specified in paragraph (1) managed by the Victim E; (b) obstructed the entrance; and (c) obstructed the two upper and upper half upper half upper and upper half upper and the upper part of the outer part, which were placed on the wall; and (d) failed to search for things.

3. On February 4, 2020, at night, the Defendant: (a) intruded by a entrance open to the 202nd floor of the D funeral hall as stipulated in paragraph (1) managed by the Victim F; (b) on February 4, 2020, the Defendant stolen it with one credit card, one identification card, and one cell phone with three identification cards, which are located adjacent to the victim being divingd from the floor; and (c) one cell phone with three identification cards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement of F, C, and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to scene of damage, photographs of damaged articles, field photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense (the Act on the thief of a building at night and the Act on the thief of a building at night) and Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act (the Act on the thief of a building at night);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the value of the stolen goods is not relatively large, certain damaged goods are recovered, the defendant seems to have a profound attitude toward his/her mistake, and the defendant has a record of sending juvenile protection cases to him/her due to the same kind of crime in the past, but after 201, criminal records of the same kind are criminal records.