A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:30 on 21:30 on the third floor of the construction site of the New B B B, the Defendant, using each of the following items, built the windows of the D Building 3 located in the victim C at the third floor of the construction site of the D Building, followed each item between B 3 and the above D Building 3, and entered the victim’s residence.

The defendant continued to steals the victim's market value of approximately KRW 400,000,000 owned by the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment, etc. of photographs of damaged scene);

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing)

1. The scope of the recommended sentence on the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court / [type] the scope of the recommended sentence for the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court / [the scope of the recommended sentence] the area of special mitigation [the person who is subject to special sentencing], the crime of living penalty and the crime of not punishable [the scope of the recommended sentence] - April 1 year and June;

2. The defendant's liability for the crime of this case shall not be minor, considering the risk of being potential for the crime of this case, determined to be sentenced;

However, in consideration of the favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentence of the same punishment is imposed within the scope of the recommended punishment, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant's mistake is divided and did not repeat the crime; (b) the defendant, who was suffering from the economic distress due to the spouse's cancer, appears to have committed the crime of this case by contingency; (c) the injured party does not want the punishment against the defendant; and (d) the injured party was fully recovered from the damage; and (e) the injured party was fully recovered; and (e) the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such