1. On April 14, 2016, the Defendant infringed upon a residence: (a) opened a main door door, which was not corrected in the house of the victim D located in Sejong-si at Sejong-si; and (b) intruded into the victim’s residence and infringed upon the victim’s house.

2. As above, the Defendant invadedd the victim’s residence and carried out 30,000,000 won in total, and 5,000,000,000 won in the market value of the victim’s house and 5,000,000 won in the market value, 1, 3,000,000,000 won in the market value, 1,000,000 won in the market value, and 1,8,000,000,000 won in the market value, and 5,00,000,000 won in market value.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen property equivalent to 16,700,000 won in total of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D and E respective legal testimony;

1. Entry of D statements made by the prosecutor into D in the protocol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes written in a investigative report (report on the adjustment of values of damaged articles);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (Influence of residence), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (influence of residence), and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The reason for sentencing of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] The mitigated area (from August to one year and six months) (the special mitigated person] mitigated area (the decision of sentence] mitigated area (from August to one year), there are many kinds of crimes in the same kind of crime [the decision of sentence], the fact that it is a crime during the suspension period of the execution of the same crime, the fact that it is a living penalty, the fact that it is a crime during the period of the suspension of the execution of punishment, and the fact that part of the crime is recognized.