A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Criminal facts

The defendant, who lives with the drinking water, was aware that the construction work of the new building C was suspended due to the unpaid construction cost, and that management was neglected, was stolen, and used for the selling and selling expenses on the water.

On April 4, 2014, around 12:49, the Defendant invadedd with C and attempted to steal the victim E with an air-conditioning apparatus owned by the victim E, which was behind the scene of the death, and attempted to steal or steal the victim’s property over 18 times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, from April 4 to May 26, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. A criminal investigation report (CCTV analysis, entrance and exit route used by a suspect, CCTV photographs, and CCTV confirmation report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs and CCTV photographs;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, and choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommending punishment] The basic area (6-1-6 months) of types 2 (general larceny) and the basic area (6-1-6 months) of the Criminal Act / [decision of sentencing] the defendant stolen property owned by the same victim several times between the two months and did not completely recover damage, and the victim did not want a strong punishment against the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the amount of damage caused by the crime in the judgment does not seem to be large, it is advantageous to the fact that some thefts are committed, that the defendant repents and reflects his mistake, that he deposited gold 1,00,000 won for the victim, and that he has no record of criminal punishment such as investigation, in addition to the suspension of indictment for the same crime around 201.