A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant invadedd on a stolen and structure: (a) around 16:30 on October 26, 2015, the victim D (E agricultural partnership) operated by Jeoncheon-gu Seoul, and intruded into the said warehouse by using the gaps in which stacks are opened; and (b) 1 bomed rice (10km) at the market price of the victim’s ownership stored therein, which is equivalent to KRW 30,00,000.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's structure and stolen the property.

2. On the same day, the Defendant intruded into the warehouse of the said victim in the same manner at around 18:20 on the same day, and 1 bombs (20 km) of rice (20 km) with the market price of the victim’s ownership, which was kept there.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen property by intrusion upon the victim's structure at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Each investigation report (the statement for a crime committed by adding a suspect, photographic pictures of damaged objects, and confirmation at the time of sunset);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act that provides for the choice of punishment (a point to Section 1, a choice of imprisonment), Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point to intrude a structure, a choice of imprisonment with prison labor), Article 330 of the Criminal Act (a point to larceny a structure at night);

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. The Defendant did not commit the larceny under Paragraph 2 of the holding.

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

2. The judgment of larceny is that when a person infringes another person's possession and moves his/her property to his/her own possession, that is, when he/she is under his/her factual control (Supreme Court Decision 8 December 8, 1964).