A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 05:20 on April 22, 2016, was a restaurant of “E operated by the victim D” in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor; (b) opened a corrected entrance by taking the key hidden by the victim in the next mail; and (c) intruded into the door; and (d) carried out cash, 354,000 won.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd a structure at night and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement;

1. Receipt of reports on damage;

1. The Kakao Stockholm dialogue content, ctv video-fags;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (the change of a victim), investigation report (the confirmation of a day-time);

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation [Scope of Recommendation] Where the mitigated area (8-1-6 months) (special mitigation) (special mitigation) of types 4 in general property intrudes into places other than indoor residential space (Article 4) / [Determination of sentence] The sentence was determined as ordered by taking full account of all of the factors indicated in the arguments, such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior, home environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., in the following major circumstances:

The defendant asserts to the effect that the act of theft of property which intrudes on another person's building on the new wall by abusing the past experience of working in disadvantageous circumstances is not easy, that the nature of the crime is not weak, that there is no agreement with the victim for the repayment of damage or that there is no agreement with the victim, that the act of theft is committed once, and that there is no criminal punishment for the same crime, and that there is no criminal punishment for the same crime, the defendant's assertion that the defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence

According to the records, the defendant can be recognized as having been in a state of drinking at the time of committing the crime of this case.