A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 23, 2013, at around 13:30 on June 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) went into the house of the victim D (Inn, 39 years of age) who is located in the Seo-gu Seo-gu Ctel, Seo-gu, Seo-gu; (b) taken a face with a black fluor’s face; and (c) taken the entrance door into the house, the Defendant invadedd the female’s residence by cutting the door into the open and taking the door into the house.

2. The Defendant continued to commit robbery at the same time, at the same place, and at the same time and place as above: (a) scambling the above victim, and scam the victim’s scam, etc.; and (b) scam the female’s property; (c) scambling the victim’s property; (d) but (e) scambling the victim’s body and scambling

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each statement made by the police in relation to D;

1. Each entry in the records of seizure and the list of seized articles and images of seized articles;

1. Application of each video statute to on-site photographs, and each CCTV image photograph;

1. Relevant Articles 342 and 333 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment, and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of intrusion upon residence and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Legal mitigation under Articles 25 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act from among concurrent crimes (aggravating concurrent crimes within the extent that the punishment is added up the long-term punishment for an attempted robbery with heavier punishment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and the defense counsel’s assertion are acknowledged to have invaded the victim’s house with an intention to steals money. However, the defendant asserts to the effect that he did not use assault against the victim, such as not harming the victim at the time, but sprinking the victim’s house, and there was no fact at the time.