On October 10, 2018, at around 00:55, the Defendant intruded into the office through the windows opened in the office D office operated by the victim C, which was operated by the Daejeon Seodong-gu, Daejeon Sungdong-gu, by using the cell phone rash light in which the Defendant was in possession, and did not commit an attempted attempt by the neighbor E, who was in the vicinity of the Madle-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each statement prepared by the F, E, and G;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts was that the Defendant attempted to steal goods by entering another person’s office at night.

The Defendant seems to prepare tools necessary for larceny in advance and have come to commit the crime.

(A) At the time of arrest, the Defendant was in possession of drones, armores, and masts at the time of arrest. The Defendant asserts that, while the delivery date of a restaurant in China, the Defendant was always in possession of the tool in order to use it in the event of a breakdown or malfunction. However, at the time, the Defendant’s assertion was about 00:55, a new wall hour, and that, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, he was outside of the place where he was in need of drinking at the lodging room and went outside of the place of drinking. As such, it is difficult to see that the Defendant was in possession of the tool from the time of delivery. The Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor and the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for three times, due to

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of the suspended execution of the same criminal act (the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for night building intrusion larceny at the Daejeon District Court on September 21, 2017 and 2 years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive on September 29, 2017).

However, there was no specific damage due to the attempted larceny crime.

The victim shall be the defendant from the time when the first investigative agency makes a statement.