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

【Criminal Power】 On May 3, 2013, the Defendant was a person who received a summary order of KRW 5 million from the Incheon District Court due to a crime of intrusion upon residence.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On May 14, 2013, at around 10:15, the Defendant: (a) opened a gate with a view to theft of property from the house of the victim C victim D in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City; (b) opened the gate, and opened the entrance door, using the drick, and intruded the victim’s residence by entering the victim’s house to the house inside the house of the victim.

2. As seen above, the Defendant attempted to steals property, such as following an intrusion upon the victim’s residence, and following an internal harassment, but attempted to commit an attempted theft with the wind that was discovered to the victim returning home.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement;

1. D's legal statement;

1. Each photograph (Evidence, at the scene of damage), records of seizure, and the list of seizure;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of investigation reports (prior convictions in the same offense)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 319 (1) (Influences into residence and choice of imprisonment), 342 and 329 (Influence of larceny and Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act;

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 ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act and the Defendant’s reason for sentencing are denying the attempted larceny of this case. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the crime is sufficiently recognized.

As above, the defendant denies the crime, and there is no record of being sentenced to a fine heavier than that of the defendant with respect to the same crime, and there is no record of being sentenced to a fine with respect to the same crime, although there are unfavorable circumstances such as the poor quality of the crime in light of the method of each of the crimes in this case, the same criminal records, etc.