[criminal power] On October 28, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch, and completed the execution of the sentence on February 19, 2017. On November 10, 2017, the same court sentenced the building intrusion and imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 19, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant and the Victim B (hereinafter “B”) of the 2019 Height195 indicated the facts charged in the facts charged in the office F of the member C of Ansan-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the 4th unit D of the 4th unit “E Public Announcement Center” (hereinafter “the instant public notification center”) for several months due to the annual relationship, but considering the evidence adopted and examined by this court, it is obvious that the foregoing mentioned is a clerical error (see, e.g., evidence records 224 pages) and without any amendment to the indictment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it would interfere with the Defendant’s defense right. Therefore, it is corrected as described above.

At this time, the person was living together.

The victim G is the manager of the instant Gowon, the victim H and I are the tenants of the instant Gowon, the victim J is the lessee of the third floor of the instant commercial building, the victim L is the president of the “N Hospital” of the instant commercial building, the victimO is the president of the “P Hospital of the third floor of the instant commercial building,” the victim R is the business owner of the “T” of the second floor S of the instant commercial building. The victim U is the business owner of the 4th floor V of the instant commercial building, the victim X is the business owner of the “W” of the 3rd floor of the instant commercial building, and the victim X is the business owner of the “AC” of the 2nd floor AB of the instant commercial building. The victim AA is the business owner of the “AC” of the same building.

In the facts charged, there is an omission in the number of specific units of each store of the commercial building of this case, but considering the evidence adopted and examined by this court, it is obvious that the above mentioned is a clerical error (see, e.g., record 242) and it is recognized as such without modification of the indictment.