A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months and by imprisonment for not more than two months with prison labor for a crime set forth in the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On May 24, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in the Chuncheon District Court on June 1, 2011, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 1, 2011, and on August 18, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. in the Chuncheon District Court on August 18, 201, and was released on January 30, 2012 during the execution of the sentence and the parole period expired on March 2, 2012.

1. The Defendant “2014 Highest670” is a person who works as a substitute engineer in modern plastic cities.

On May 24, 2014, around 22:35, the Defendant: (a) sought to deliver stacks in front of the house of the victim C and C, 304, Switzerland, but the Defendant discovered that the entrance was not corrected in the state of the victim’s outing outing, and entered the collection method, and then cut down KRW 90,000,000, in cash owned by the victim under the jurisdiction of the victim inside the west.

2. Around 14:00 on March 24, 2009, the Defendant: (a) carried 14:00 the victim F’s room room in Switzerland E and 103; (b) the victim’s room room in Switzerland E and 103; and (c) carried the victim’s 14K gold-rums worth KRW 500,000 and KRW 30,000,000 in cash, which were located in the clothes room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements prepared D or F;

1. Reporting on investigation and confirmation of theft personal information;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Determination of criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (A), investigation reports (verification reports on the expiration of the term of punishment), investigation reports (suspects' previous convictions and reports), the defendant and defense counsel's arguments;

1. As to 2014 Godan670, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of intrusion by residence is not established, since the defendant and his defense counsel knew that there was a person because they turned on the ward and inside and outside of the room at the time, and they attempted to deliver the matter with the knowledge that there was a person.

In other words, the following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, namely, the victim D, who sent letters to the victim that the defendant would deliver the call at around 16:00 on the day of the instant case, to the victim D.