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.

【2017 Height 1403】

1. On March 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) came to the house of the victim B located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. on March 13, 2017; (b) opened an unlocked visit and intrudes into the inner bank; and (c) carried out cash amounting to KRW 714,00,000, which is the ownership of the victim in the U.S. envelope; and (d) stolen it.

2. On March 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) thief against the victim D; (b) entered and intruded into the inner bank through the gate and the entrance door that was not unlocked until the house of the victim D in Ulsan-gun E on March 17, 2017; (c) 1,800,000 won in cash and the market price of KRW 300,000,000 in cash, which are the ownership of the victim in the inner blap of the said place; and (d) stolen it.

【2017 Highest 1617 [Defendant] On September 21, 2016, at around 12:00, the Defendant entered the house of Victim G located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., and opened a kitchen entrance and intrudes into the kitchen, which was not corrected, and 1,300,000 won in cash owned by the victim who was in custody in the relevant place of harassment.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reports on the occurrence of each theft;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of D, B and G;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act (a point in Section 329), Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point in intrusion upon residence) and choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 62-2 of the community service order is very unfavorable to the defendant who has already been punished for the same kind of crime, even though he/she had a record of repeated committing the instant crime.

However, it is difficult to see that the defendant reflects the crime in depth, the theft law is professional, and is unstable during the period of physiological.