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

On June 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened the victim’s house and intrudes the victim’s house that was not corrected by the victim’s idea of larceny; and (b) opened the erogate, etc. in the inside and outside to color the stolen object; (c) however, the Defendant was found to have been aware of the victim’s house that was returned to the erogate, and the purport was not achieved.

Accordingly, the defendant invadeds on the victim's residence, and tried to steals the victim's property, but did not bring about such intent and did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, Articles 342, 329 (a point of attempted larceny) of the Criminal Act, and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime;

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. That there was a history of being sentenced four times of punishment due to the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Act (200, 2004, 2007, 2009). A considerable period of time has elapsed from the last record of the same kind of crime, and that the thief was committed on an attempted charge;