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

On August 20, 2018, at around 17:15, the Defendant, at the time of the Victim C’s house located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu Dong-gu, took three times the first race, opened a gate by using the key of the Defendant’s house prepared in advance, and intruded into the said gate to the said gate, and did not come to the Defendant’s attempt while flap the money and valuables to be stolen at that place, but did not come to the wind so discovered by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear victim's telephone statements);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 342, 329, and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of larceny and the choice of imprisonment) of the choice of punishment;

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. The defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order did not have the intention of larceny because the defendant opened a gate that has been inevitably corrected as his/her key to his/her own house because he/she was the same as one similar to his/her house, and it was merely an entry into the eromatic gate, thereby having no intention of

The defendant asserts to the effect that the act of booming Mail does not constitute the commencement of larceny.

In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved. Therefore, it cannot be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object.

The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, where the victim's house is located, the victim's house is the inner house of the pelpelto, and there is no reason to perceive the outside house and the outside house, and the opening of the other person's house gate by his own house is not easy to understand on the ground that the other person's house gate is similar to his house gate.