Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

Punishment of the crime

[2] On December 7, 2016, the facts charged in balcony No. 10:00 on December 7, 2016, which were not corrected by the Defendant’s intrusion into a residence (hereinafter “199”) and the theft Defendant is considered “betara,” but it is a space generated by using some of the spaces of the floors in which the area of the first and second floors of the building is located in Vietnam, and the fact that there is a disturbance on the first floor, such as this facts charged, is not feasible.

Therefore, it is obvious that it is the above clerical error, and it is recognized without any changes in indictment, and it does not seem to hinder the exercise of the defendant's right to defense.

Intrusion through windows, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of

[2017 고단 3651, 이하 ‘3651’ 이라 한다] 사기 피고인은 2016. 12. 21. 경 인터넷 카페 F에 갤 럭 시에쓰 쎄븐 (S7) 스마트 폰을 판매한다는 글을 게재하여 이를 보고 연락한 피해자 G에게 ‘270,000 원을 먼저 입금해 주면 갤 럭 시 S7 을 보내주겠다’ 고 말하였다.

However, the defendant did not have the above smartphones, and even if he received money from the injured party, he thought that he would use it as living expenses, etc., so he did not have the intention or ability to send smartphones to the injured party.

On December 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 270,000 from the corporate bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant around December 22, 2016 from the victim.

[2017 Highest 3686, 3686, hereinafter referred to as "the 3686th thief") Special thief, and thief, even though the charge was committed during night, it is clear that it is a clerical error in the thief for intrusion of a structure at night.

The defendant tried to commit larceny by intrusion on a commercial building without any visual person at night.