except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a year and six months from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. A special thief Defendant and C: (a) around 02:00 on April 5, 2012, 201, the victim E, who had a D house 201, was placed in front of the victim E’s residence, citing the market value of his/her clothes and stolen them.

Accordingly, the defendant and C stolen another's property together with the defendant.

2. Around 09:20 on April 8, 2012, the Defendant intruded the plan through an entrance opened in the victim E’s residence, which was located in the victim E’s house (hereinafter “victim E”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the suspect;

1. Statement of each police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the 112 Statement of Receipt and Handling of Criminal Reports;

1. Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts (the point of special larceny) and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act;

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

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

1. As to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the suspended execution, the defendant and his defense counsel did not have intention to infringe upon his/her residence, and the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have any supporting evidence in addition to confession

It is true that C's house claimed by the defendant has 302 D's house in which the victim resides.

In light of the evidence of this case, even if the defendant was found to have come to the 201 suspender of the above house, it can be acknowledged that the defendant did not withdraw from the 201 suspender of the above 201 and did assaulting the victim's her head to her head and her head to her head. According to the above facts, the defendant intentionally intruded the victim's her right without permission, such as the facts charged, even though he knew that the victim was found to have come to her office within the above 201.

In addition, the defendant is against special larceny.