Seized evidence 1-6, 10-13 shall be confiscated.

1. On January 1, 2014, the Defendant installed a c apartment 103 Dong 201, 201 in front of the seat of the victim D, which was prepared to replace the victim D with a center, etc. where CCTV was installed in the corridor, and then discovered the victim D's house entrance door password. At around 16:00 the following day, the Defendant stolen the Defendant’s 16:50,000 won of the market price of the victim’s possession, 50,000 won of the 3.5 billion won of the market price, 170,000 won of the market price, 10,000 won of the market price, 60,000 won of the 1,020,000 won of the market price, and 3,000,000 won of cash.

2. On January 21, 2014, around 13:20 on January 21, 2014, the Defendant installed CCTV using the same method as that of the victim E, 103 Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, 1001, and tried to steal property by breaking the password into the victim’s house, but the Defendant attempted to commit a theft by breaking the password into the victim’s house. However, the Defendant did so with an attempted attempt to change the password.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement of D and E;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment of a written appraisal);

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

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 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act (a person subject to special mitigation) is not subject to punishment [the scope of punishment] 8-1 and 6 (a) of August 1 of the same Act [the decision of sentence] The Defendant, upon finding out another person’s present door password of the building living together, intrudes another person’s residence with stolen things, and then intrudes another person’s residence and installs Mameras, thereby leading the Defendant to commit the instant crime again under the same law, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months and was under the same suspended sentence, and thus, he was planned and sealed to commit the instant crime.