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

On September 29, 2013, at around 01:10, the Defendant opened an window outside of the kitchen room B and 102 in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, the Defendant: (a) intruded the window into the living room through open windows after the year of the prevention of crime by removing 2 and inner windows; and (b) dumpeded the window with approximately 15 minutes of the living room in order to color the inner room; (c) however, the Defendant failed to commit an attempted crime, even though the victim was locked the door and sound in the room, and failed to bring the sound into action.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Personal confirmation of the fingerprints of the theft incident, fingerprinting appraisal results, replies and appraisal reports on the scene of the crime, a written request for adequate appraisal and replies;

1. On-site photographs and case-related photographs;

1. On-site reports on results of field identification;

1. A report on creation (four pages of evidence records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (Evidence Record 8, 32, 46 pages);

1. Articles 342 and 331 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

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

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act reflects the Defendant’s reason for sentencing, the Defendant’s damage to and intrudes into windows at night and thereby is not good in quality of the crime, the instant crime was committed against attempted crimes, and the Defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime. It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.