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

On April 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 04:38, the Victim C (Fran, 40 years old); (b) around 04:38, the Defendant came into the residence of the Victim C (Fol, B lending; and (c) had been divided into the above housing units three times, but he thought that he did not have any seal, and had infringed on the said housing and received a theft of the property.

After that, the Defendant removed the above residence toilet crime prevention windows from hand and intruded into the victim's residence through the toilet window. However, it is difficult to find out the victim's entry, turn on the game, and sound, and to avoid committing the crime of out-of-the-door boom, and escape from that place.

Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to steal property by intrusion upon the victim's residence at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of the statutes governing CCTV images of the case;

1. Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant reflects his mistake; (b) there are no criminal records other than the past records of punishment by a fine twice; (c) the crime of this case is committed in favor of the attempted crime; (d) the nature of the crime is not good; and (e) the fact that there is a history of punishment by larceny, such as intrusion upon the victim’s residence; and (e) the fact that there is a history of punishment by larceny, etc., considered the various conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, and determine the same type