1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and two months;

2.Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant’s “F” stated in the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu facts charged from April 16, 2017 to 07:18 is a clerical error.

The victim E, who was prepared in advance for the purpose of theft of property in front of the window of the victim E's residence of the 1st floor underground of the building, opened the crime prevention window by removing the crime prevention window, and entered the victim's room through the window.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed one of the crime prevention windows owned by the victim who is not aware of the market price as above, and invaded the residence of the victim.

2. While the Defendant colored stolen objects at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, the Defendant stolen them with a market price of 10 panty 10 panty owned by the victim inside the victim’s room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment against the crime, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intrusion upon residence), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (The following sentencing shall be considered as favorable circumstances, etc. in the light of the importance of sentencing):

4. Article 62-2 (1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2 (2) of the Criminal Act for the observation and observation of protection;

5. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant, etc. under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, and the defense counsel thereof, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel did not contain some memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

The records of this case show that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the above crime, but it does not seem that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1. Reasons for sentencing.