However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On October 18, 2014, at around 23:00, the Defendant opened a 330,000 won in cash from the victim E’s home located on the inner floor, where the victim D and his her her her friend victim E (V, 50 years of age) was diving before the victim D (n, 47 years of age)’s house located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim E (V, 50 years of age) was locked, opened a hump of the toilet window of the above house, intruded into the house, and intruded into it, and 14,00 won in cash from the victim E’s home located on the inner floor, where the market price cannot be known from the victim D’s home.

Accordingly, the Defendant, at night, stolen the victims' property by destroying and impairing a part of the residence of a person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of E and D;

1. Application of statutes on the field file reports, reports on the results of field identification, and fingerprint identification certificates;

1. Articles 331 (1) and 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall be the basic area (one year to two years) of the types of larceny for general property; and

2. Determination of sentence: (a) the Defendant committed a theft of a victim’s property by destroying or impairing a part of a human’s residence at night; and (b) the liability for such crime is not less strict; (c) the Defendant did not recover from damage; and (d) the Defendant had three-time penalty records, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for a crime of double-class; and

However, considering the fact that the defendant repents his mistake and reflects his depth, the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case is relatively not much severe, the defendant seems to have endeavored to recover damage, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime, it is considered to be favorable.