However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On February 25, 2019, at around 03:42, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the door by inserting the pre-determined rejection (i.e., “one omitted”; (b) approximately 60-70cm in length; (c) approximately 2-2.5cm in iron doors; and (d) invaded into the above hospital; and (b) stolen the door with approximately 100,000 won in cash owned by the victim D; (c) one cell phone charging machine; and (d) 16 head of Tong and one seal owned by the victim E in the multi-use d unit.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victims' property by destroying a fire door at night and impairing a structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of D and E;

1. Articles 331(1) and 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Although the nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and the applicable law, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the victims have agreed to commit the instant crime, and that there is no record of the crime exceeding the fine, etc., the Defendant’s age, health status, character and behavior, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account.