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

On November 5, 2018, at around 05:36, the Defendant: (a) resided in Ulsan-gu B (Nam, 53 years of age); and (b) entered a place where “D” building was blickly connected to a cafeteria operated by the victim; (c) entered a mash by exceeding 1.5m of the wall (the height is about 1.5m); (d) entered the cafeteria in a cafeteria connected to the house; and (d) entered the cafeteria; and then re-explocing the object to be stolen; and (d) intrudes the inside of the cafeteria and inside the house into the cafeteria; and (e) cut off the 1 million won of the market value of the victim’s ownership from the cafeteria and inside the house; and (e) 1 gate, point flick, flick, flick, etc., that consist of 2 million won of credit card and cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order;

1. The scope of punishment by law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] for larceny [No. 4] for general property, intrusion larceny [Special Convict] for mitigated elements: Non-conformity of punishment [the scope of recommending area and recommending punishment], mitigation area of punishment [the scope of recommending area and recommending punishment], and imprisonment between August and January 16;

3. Determination of sentence of punishment in consideration of the fact that there are many previous offenses, the fact that the offenses are divided, and other matters such as the age, environment, etc. of the accused.