The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

At around 13:35 on January 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) opened a gate which was not set up in front of the house of the victim E located in Guri-si; and (b) intruded into the house; (c) cut off the 100,000 won of the market price owned by the victim, which was located in the bank, at the same time, with one string of 100,000 won of the market price of the victim’s possession; (d) one string of 200,000 won of the market price of the inside television; (e) one string of 200,000 won of the market price of the city where the market price was located in the inside bulp; and (e) one string of 5,00,000 won of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each E statement;

1. Results of inquiry into personal information of the Commission for Expert Opinion and the Detained SuspectNA;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on generation (thief), a report on investigation (CCTV verification and investigation, etc.), a report on internal investigation (Attachment toCCTV Data), a report on investigation (verification of additional crimes in the field), and a report on investigation (to hear the victim’s telephone statement

1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 32(1)3 and (2), and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings for Dismissal of Application for Compensation (where the scope of liability for compensation is unclear),

1. The gist of the claim and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant entered the nearby place to find up the goods left at the time and there is no fact that the goods were stolen by intrusion upon the victim's house.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the victim, consistently enters the investigative agency and the CCTV images up to this court, with the victim’s minccot sufficiently enters the above bank, while deeming that the victim’s minccot used by the victim’s his/her wife cannot be used for traveling.