On November 13, 2016, around 16:40 on November 13, 2016, the Defendant tried to detect the victim’s franchise-free car parked in front of the residence of the victim D located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, the victim E, the victim E, and the victim F’s soil car parked in the same alleyway, open the door of the above vehicle in the order of order, and steals the property located therein, but the sentence was not corrected.

Although the Defendant continued to park on the said alley, opened a string door on the string line owned by the victim G, and examined the inside of the vehicle, the Defendant did not find any objects that could be stolen.

As such, the Defendant attempted to steals goods located on the victim’s vehicle, but did not bring about such intent and did not commit each attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. Report on internal investigation (related to the theft case), photographs (the photographs taken of the suspect's scene of crime, damaged vehicles, etc.), and report on investigation (related to the investigation into victim's G telephone), the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 342 of the Criminal Act and Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes is committed by the defendant who had the same criminal records for four times prior to the same criminal records and attempted to repeat a crime during the period of suspension of execution due to the same criminal records, and thus, the nature of such crime is not good.

The defendant seems to have committed larceny in addition to the principal offense during the period of probation.

In light of the above circumstances, the sentence on the defendant is inevitable.

However, since all of the crimes were committed by the defendant, all of which are perceived as a contingency crime under the influence of alcohol, three of the four attempts were corrected by the vehicle text, so the vehicle door does not reach the number of pages, and one of them was opened the vehicle door.