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

On April 3, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on April 11, 2015.

Criminal facts

On July 27, 2017, the Defendant discovered the Victim F (n, 44 years of age) who was under influence of alcohol in the street of the Gu E, and subsequently, found the victim F (n, 44 years of age) who was under influence of alcohol on the street of the Gu E, and infringed the victim’s residence by using the window that the victim entered the residential area to view the inside of the residential area with the window that the victim gets into the residential area, and then sealed the shock network of the windows opened to the rear side of the residential building, and then pushed the victim’s knife his hand over with a knife, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion on the CCTV images to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. In full view of the circumstances such as the content of the crime committed by the evidence of this case, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions

Therefore, the above argument is not acceptable.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been in the period of suspended execution due to the previous conviction stated in the judgment of the Defendant for the reason of sentencing and Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act, the liability for the crime is not easy

However, it seems that the fact that the defendant's mistake and reflects, and that the loss was deducted from the window installed with a decline, and that it seems that it did not reach a serious degree of intrusion on residence, and all other matters such as the circumstances of the crime, circumstances after the crime, the age and environment of the defendant, etc.