On August 31, 2016, from around 23:58 to 00:11, the following day, the Defendant: (a) had been placed in front of the warehouse door, and had been placed in front of the victim D’s residence; (b) had 15,000 won increased by the market price, which was the victim’s possession; (c) had been opened and intruded into the warehouse door that was not corrected; and (d) had 10 capital, which was the victim’s possession and was under custody, brought about the distribution of insignias. Ultimately, the Defendant stolen the victim’s property by intrusion upon the victim’s residence at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each photograph, victim's house ctv image to the effect that the Defendant did not commit the instant crime, but comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, the application of the law to the effect that the Defendant committed the instant crime can be sufficiently recognized) shall apply.

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Code provides that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 330 of the Criminal Code does not reflect his/her mistake.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the fact that the instant crime was committed during the period of suspension of execution due to the same crime, the fact that no agreement is made with the victim, and the age, sex, environment, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime.