A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 5, 2019, from around 21:2 to 23:32, the Defendant removed the warehouse window of the victim C's D office in Gangwon-si, and intruded into the office beyond its windows, and opened the safe door in the above office by preparing in advance, and then cut off the cash amounting to KRW 1.2 million owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of CCTV for crime prevention, CCTV photographs, list of employees, field photographs, shoess, new shoes, and arctial photographs;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment under law for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order: One month to ten years;

2. Scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] thief [No. 4] Intrusion upon general property [special stief] : In cases of intrusion upon places, other than indoor residential space, the element of aggravation of punishment: Where a person has repeatedly committed a crime using special methods, tools or organizations (limited to habitual offenders) (limited to the area of recommending punishment and the scope of recommending punishment); imprisonment with labor for up to August 16;

3. From 1980 to 2008, the Defendant committed the same kind of crime in this case, even though he had been sentenced one time to suspended sentence and four times to sentenced punishment for the same larceny crime.

The defendant's responsibility for this is not easy.

However, considering the fact that the defendant was aware of the crime, the last thief for ten years from the theft crime, and the fact that some of the damaged cash was seized and returned to the victim, and that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim in this court, it is particularly considered.