Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

On November 22, 2016, at around 04:24, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the correction device of Schlage’s inquiry using a watcher (mix 29cm in length) prepared in advance in the “D” market operated by the victim C in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul; (b) 17 small urban areas in amounting to KRW 8,500 and 400 of the market price of the victim’s ownership in the said market; (c) laid down in the said market, the Defendant laid down 17 urban areas in which the victim’s ownership was located and laid down in the main machine in the amount of KRW 8,50,00.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property by destroying and impairing part of the structure at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Each written statement E and C;

1. Application of statutes on the photograph of the case

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for six months to five years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the punishment [the scope of the recommendation and the scope of the punishment] in the case of intrusion theft (the four types of special sentencing] in general property: In the case of intrusion into places, other than indoor residential spaces, (4) [the scope of the recommendation and the scope of the punishment] in the area of mitigation, eight months to one year

3. The act of theft by destroying a part of a structure and destroying it at night at the time when the sentence of sentence is determined is disadvantageous to the fact that the nature of the crime is not weak, and that it does not reach an agreement with the victim.

On the other hand, the fact that theft goods are small amounts, the defendant was recovered immediately after the crime, the defendant was a Chinese national, who had never been punished in the Republic of Korea is more favorable, and the defendant has no record of punishment in the Republic of Korea, and the punishment is determined as ordered by considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in records and changes.