On June 9, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Busan District Court on the ground of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and the execution of the sentence was terminated on March 6, 2012.

On October 6, 2013, at around 04:00, the Defendant entered the victim D’s “E” office in Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City, into the “E” office, and then intruded the above office with the password of the door-to-door locked, and then stolen the Defendant’s personal data from 1.8 million won at the victim’s market price on the above office’s book.

After all, the defendant stolen another's property by intrusion upon a structure that people receive at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement protocol with D;

1. Previous records: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of inquiry by a person and an individual;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [Scope of Recommendation] : the reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act for general property [In the case of intrusion theft] : (4) in the mitigated area (from August to January 6) [the opinion of the prosecutor] / [the opinion of the prosecutor] 8 months in imprisonment for a term of 6 months disadvantageous to the defendant : The circumstances favorable to the point that the defendant escaped is a repeated crime. The circumstances favorable to the point that the defendant escaped are not indoor residential space, not indoor residential space: the defendant's age, sex, behavior, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, intelligence and environment, the victim's motive, means and result, etc., shall be determined as the order, which exceeded the minimum limit of the recommended sentencing guidelines set in the sentencing guidelines set in