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

On September 22, 2016, at around 21:30, the Defendant: (a) opened a entrance that was not corrected by using the rest of the victim’s seat; (b) intruded into the room room; (c) on September 22, 2016, the Defendant stolen the Defendant, with a chapter 1 and a chapter 2, in the aggregate of the market value of the victim’s possession stored in the westhead, with approximately KRW 30,000, the sum of the market value of the victim’s possession.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. A written statement;

1. Criminal report and investigation report;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of seizure records and statutes concerning the list of seizure;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (one to two years) (one year and six months) for the theft of general property (special sentencing sentencing) [Determination of sentence] The crime of this case where the defendant committed a theft of goods by entering the room in which the female victim is married, is not good. However, although there is no other force except for the defendant being fined twice, the defendant has no other force, and reflects the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions including the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., a lower sentence than the sentencing guidelines shall be determined.