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

At around 22:30 on April 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened a window in an unlocked warehouse and intruded into a warehouse; (b) 18,000 won in the market price owned by the victim, which was located outside the warehouse; and (c) 15,000 won in the market price; and (d) tried to have the cargo parked in the front of the warehouse through a warehouse; (b) the Defendant attempted to have the cargo parked in the front of the warehouse; (c) however, the Defendant did not have attempted to have the trucked in the front of the warehouse, referring to the victim, who was found in the warehouse after hearing the sound that the Defendant paid, and did not have attempted to have the cargo taken place.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to steal the victim's property by impairing the victim's structure at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that the crime is a confession and reflects the wrong, the fact that the crime commits an attempted crime is committed, and part of the amount of damage is deposited);

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;