On November 26, 2016, the Defendant moved up to the fourth floor of the outer wall of the above building in a non-disshion manner at the Government-Si, Do-si, Do-si on November 26, 2016, and broken down the main window of 401, where the victim D (the age of 33) was installed on the outer wall, and entered the body of the victim through a shoulder window.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property and infringed on the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to E and D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Seizure records;

1. Photographs of seized articles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, such as site;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 366 of the Criminal Act that selects the penalty, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, for the purpose of concurrent crimes, is an intrusion upon a female victim and his/her child, who is a female victim and his/her child, at night, at the convenience of a small window installed on the outer wall of the fourth floor of the building. It can be easily said that the reason for the crime other than the purpose of additional crime is difficult, and that the victim and his/her child’s child at the time of the crime and the fear of fear after the crime are reasonable.

Along with the fact that the defendant was discovered early and escaped, and the defendant did not reach a more crime. However, the defendant had been punished twice due to sexual crimes in the past, and one of them was invaded upon the residence.

A defendant was under the influence of alcohol to commit a crime.

However, since the Defendant committed a crime under drinking even in the past, it can be sufficiently predicted that the habit of his own crime can be realized due to the drinking, and thus, the punishment cannot be provided for that reason.

On the other hand, the economic damage of the victim caused by the crime of this case is not significant.

In addition, the mother of the defendant is suffering from illness, and the defendant should support the defendant, and the defendant also runs away after the crime of this case.