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

On January 23, 2015, at around 02:30, the Defendant intruded into the e-factory, beyond the fenced by the factory entrance, in front of the E-factory operated by the victim D in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, and then removed the windows by using dracker who was in the work site of maintenance storage, inserting dr in the space between the windows and windows, dracking the windows, and dracking the windows, and dracking the windows, one of the instant victims’ cash safe on their own, which was 570,000 won on their own, and 570,000 won on their own.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation reports (related to the verification of CCTVs around the site), investigation reports (related to the confirmation of CCTVs for crime prevention and the specification of intended vehicles), and the application of statutes;

1. Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) of the suspended sentence had been sentenced to a fine for larceny, despite the fact that the defendant committed the crime of special larceny in this case, the criminal liability of the defendant is unlimited, there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine of the defendant, the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflect in depth of the mistake, the victim is not subject to the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, and the defendant's age, character and behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case.