On October 3, 2014, from around 05:30 to 08:20 on the same day, the Defendant opened an office door to the victim D, located in Gangnam-gu Seoul building C, and intruded into the said office four times, and then used the victim’s market price at a level of KRW 1,00,000,000,000 in the market price of the victim’s property located in the office, 1,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won in the market price, 2,000 won in the market price, 2,00,000 won in the market price, 1,000,000 won in the market price, and 3,000,000 won in the total of the mobile phone market price at a level of KRW 70,00,00 in the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no 600,000 won of the market price by the defendant, and that there was no theft of one of the 50,000 won of the market price. However, according to each of the above evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant stolen the above camcoer and one camcoer.

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts [the scope of recommending punishment] of Article 330 of the Criminal Code for the punishment of general property / [the scope of recommending punishment ] The mitigated area (8 to 1.6 months) for the theft of general property / [the person who has been specially mitigated] the living-type crime [the decision] has no record of having been punished for the same crime committed by the defendant / part of the stolen articles was returned to the victim, and the fact that the defendant deposited 60,000 won

On the other hand, the crime of theft of property by intrusioning the victim's office on four occasions at night, such as the defendant's office, is not bad, and the amount of damage is not much.