However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On July 25, 2017, around 04:05, at the victim C’s residence located in Busan Northern-gu 116 Dong 101, the Defendant: (a) opened a corrected entrance and intruded into the installed entrance; and (b) cut off the container with one swine wre in the room ( approximately KRW 30,000,000 prior thereto).

2. On August 8, 2017, around 03:10, the Defendant: (a) opened an open door that was not corrected; and (b) intruded into the door; and (c) cut off the door with cash of KRW 300,000 in the room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (refluence of damaged articles and repayment);

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for larceny at night on August 8, 2017, with heavier punishment)

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below)

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than 15 years;

2. Scope of recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years and three months [the type] (a person subject to special sentencing] Class 4 (Influence of the punishment): Reduction element of the theft against general property: Living type, crime not subject to punishment [the scope of recommended punishment] special mitigation area, imprisonment for up to four months and one year and six months [the result of multiple crimes] from four months to two years (i.e., the maximum number of recommended punishment for the crime No. 2).

3. The Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, repeatedly committed the crime against the same victim two times, and was punished for the larceny even before the instant crime was committed.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is not so significant, and the victim does not want punishment by compensating for the damage.

This point is considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and the argument in this case.