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

On March 31, 2014, at around 19:30, the Defendant used the container for the office of the victim C located in Tonju City, at around 19:30, the Defendant used the gap without the victim to replace the entrance to replace the key repair hole and intrude into the entrance. On the other hand, the Defendant carried out the damaged goods equivalent to the total market value of 1.4 million won, including one computer and L CD monitor, the total market value of which is the victim’s market value on each page, the sum of which is equivalent to the total market value of KRW 830,000,000,000, and one distance measuring instrument equivalent to the market value of KRW 1.4 million.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen property by intrusion upon the victim's structure at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness C, E, and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including a partial statement of C and a statement of E);

1. Statement of each police statement of E and C;

1. A report on investigation (the time when the heat business operator and the termination are visual) and a report on the results of weather observations;

1. A report on investigation (27 pages of investigation records);

1. On-site photographs and damaged photographs;

1. Application of the statutes, such as a container purchase receipt and a article purchase receipt;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion under Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss Application for Compensation

1. The Defendant asserted that the act of entering the instant container does not constitute “influence” which is the constituent element of the crime of intrusion upon residence, since the Defendant was in the situation where the Defendant had access to the said container, such as setting a cooling house owned by the Defendant, etc., and was using the said container, as the Defendant received the instant container from E, which was free of charge, and allowed the victim to use it together with the Defendant.

Since the crime of intrusion upon residence is de facto protected as a legal interest to protect the peace of residence, the residence or the guard can be residing or livered in a building.