beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.08.27 2015고단2609

야간주거침입절도

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 20, 2015, at around 03:17, the Defendant: (a) went through the house of the victim D in Suwon-si C and the second floor in Suwon-si, and (b) intruded into the inside through the unrecepted kitchen window; (b) caused the victim E-owned market value of the victim E, which was placed under the part of the victim E, to take one 1,300,000 won of the market value of the victim D owned by the victim, and one 1,000,000 won of the market value of the victim D, which was placed in the window of the window.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. The current status of persons who coincide with the results of the DDA comparison;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

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

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (Confiscation: Mask and sloter worn by the defendant at the time of committing the crime cannot be deemed to be a thing provided for the crime provided for the crime provided for in Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus shall not be confiscated) The reason for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment] There is no basic area (1 to 2 years and 6 months) (1 to 4) (1 to 2 months) (the basic area (1 to 6 months) of the theft in general property [the decision of sentencing] criminal sentence is not good in that the same kind of sentence and the same sentence are repeated even though there

However, the execution of imprisonment (one year) within the scope of the above recommended sentence shall be suspended for three years, and probation and community service shall be ordered in consideration of various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is under detention for two months, the degree of damage is not excessive, and there is no record of punishment after January 2008.