On March 12, 2019, at around 20:55, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that there was no inside it; (b) called “D” AS Center; and (c) made the phone call to “D” AS Center; and (d) requested that E, a company AS engineer of the above company, arrive at the site, if he/she would be replaced with another company’s product while doing so as to be the owner of the above officetel; and (c) he/she was aware of the fact that E opened a dice installed on the above dysp, the owner, and the victim’s internal intrusion; and (d) carried the 126,00 TV dys of the market value of the victim’s G market value; and (e) carried the dysp goods of KRW 1,21,300,300,300, and the market value of the victim’s dysp goods of KRW 90,50,000.

Accordingly, the defendant, at night, stolen the victims' property by destroying part of the door and intrusion upon the victims' dwelling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Each AS withdrawal receipt and inquiry;

1. Records of police seizure and list of seizure;

1. Photographs of each seized article;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning video recording at the scene of occurrence;

1. The crime of this case committed on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 331(1) and 330 of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts is deemed to have committed a theft by recklessly intrusion upon another's residence after opening the lag installed at night as if the defendant was a lavere repair technician at night, and taking the lavere in the entrance as if he was the owner of the house. In light of the means, methods, and mode of conduct, etc. of the crime, the crime is not likely to be committed.

The defendant, even if there is clear evidence, denies the crime and does not reflect it.

In determining the specific punishment, the scope of theft damage is not so large in the above circumstances, the damage was seized and returned to the victims, the defendant does not have the same criminal record, and the defendant is not guilty.