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

1. The Defendant, around 01:06 on August 25, 2020, opened an entrance locking device and intruded into the entrance set up in front of the Pianian Private Teaching Institute operated by the injured party B in Goyang-gu, Goyang-si, Mangyeong-si, and then did not commit an attempted crime, even though he did not discover the object to be stolen, and did not commit an attempted crime.

2. The Defendant committed a crime against the victim D at around 01:10 on the same day, when he intrudes into the beauty room operated by the victim D, which was operated by the private teaching institute specified in paragraph (1), and attempted to steals the property by the said method, but was discovered by the victim who was diving inside the beauty room, and did not commit an attempted crime without having the intent to escape.

Summary of Evidence

1. The application of the Defendant’s legal statement B, each on-site and CCTV images-fashion photographs,*** the application of field photograph laws and regulations

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. As a type of intrusion larceny for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, a punishment shall be imposed and the execution thereof shall be suspended as ordered in consideration of the following: (a) the crime was committed in an unfavorable circumstance; (b) the victim did not want punishment; (c) the victims did not want such punishment; (d) the juvenile protective disposition record has passed for more than 10 years; and (e) there was no past record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (e) there is no record of punishment for the same crime; and (e) there is no reflect of mistake;