A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 01:45, the Defendant: (b) opened an automatic door and a glass door that was not set up in the cafeteria operated by the victim D, the victim D in Yasan-si; (c) invaded into the restaurant; and (d) invaded into the restaurant inside the restaurant; and (d) stolen the building with two (2) a week owned by the victim of the city in which the city is located in the air conditioners.

2. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant attempted to larceny a structure at night (i.e., theft) by opening a steel door that was not set up in the rear door of the “E” restaurant as indicated in paragraph (1) around 03:10, and intending to steal an object by intrusion inside the restaurant, but the Defendant did not have to do so on the wind that does not open an automatic glass door.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. An investigation report (the suspected person’s identity, etc. - attachment photographs, investigation reports (the enlistment photographs and CD attachment photographs) - Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the points of larceny at night) and Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act (the points of attempted larceny by intrusion upon residence at night);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. As to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, the defense counsel held that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the mental and physical weak condition under the influence of alcohol.

However, in full view of each of the above evidence, it is not sufficient to view that the defendant was aware that he had drinking alcohol at the time but has reached a state of mental and physical weakness. Therefore, the above assertion by the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing [Scope of Recommendation] The th category (Influence from April to June) in the area of special mitigation (influenced theft) [Special Mitigation] [Article 4] in the case where the defendant is against the defendant, the case is minor, the case has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and the defendant's age, sex is committed.