A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

피고인은 2015. 9. 27. 04:43 경 제주시 C에 있는 피해자 D 운영의 ‘E’ 골프 연습장에 이르러, 열려 있는 창문을 통하여 스낵 코너까지 침입하여, 그 곳에 놓여 있던 피해자 소유인 시가 약 80만 원 상당의 테일러 메이드 골프채 13 자루가 들어 있는 테일러 메이드 골프가방 1개, 테일러 메이드 골프 보조가방 1개, 커피잔 1개, 접시 1개, 밥그릇 1개, 플라스틱 쓰레기통 1개, 맥 심 커피 병 1개 및 맥 심 커피 믹스 박스 1통 등 시가 합계 100만 원 상당의 물건을 가지고 나와 피고인 소유의 F K5 승용차에 싣고 가 절취하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each investigation report (referring to CCTV-related and specific amount of damage in the E golf course);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph seized articles;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: Four types of theft against general property;

(b) Special factors to reduce sentencing: Where the person intrudes on any place other than indoor dwelling space.

(c) Determination of the recommended territory: Reduction territory;

(d) Scope of recommending punishment: Imprisonment for up to one year and six months; and

2. Determination of sentence: Determination of sentence within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing criteria, taking into account all the following circumstances:

The term "unfavorable circumstances" means that the nature of the crime is not less severe, that there is a same criminal record for the defendant (the fine for larceny in 2008), that there is no criminal agreement with the victim: It is not an intrusion into the indoor residential space, that the damaged goods were returned and the damaged goods were restored, that the same record of the defendant is due to the above fine, that there is no record of punishment after June 2010, that there is no record of criminal facts, that there is no record of punishment after the defendant was punished, that it is against the acknowledgement of criminal facts and the mistake.