A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was well aware that he was living in the vicinity of the victim B(n, 77 years of age)'s residence, and that he was living in the vicinity of the victim's children and friendlys.

1. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant, at around 14:00 on March 23, 2016, wanting to have a sexual intercourse with the victim when the victim was living in the former Northwest-gun C, the Defendant opened the entrance door of the victim who did not correct the gate, and entered the entrance into the entrance without permission to the inside of the gate, and then I think the victim “ once I think it?”

There is no thought that it intrudes upon the victim's residence, such as "."

2. The Defendant, who committed the crime on April 10, 2016, wishes to have a sexual intercourse with the victim at the place described in paragraph 1 around 03:00 on April 10, 2016, and entered the family in the same manner as described in paragraph 1 and then “beat”.

“In order to open the entrance, the entrance was opened several times, and the victim’s residence was invaded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to B

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and attendance order is not good, and the nature of the instant crime committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon the house in which the aged victim resides with an unsound intent, and it is not good that the same crime was committed again after the first crime, and that the second crime was not drinking at the time of the second crime, it is difficult to view it as an contingent crime.

Considering these points, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, the defendant is recognizing and opposing his mistake.