A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 10, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for robbery and three years and six months from the Suwon Franchisor method, and the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence in the Ganchisor Training Correctional Institution on September 8, 2015.

On September 30, 2016, at around 04:25, the Defendant, at around 04:25, tried to open a bend window of the victim AA, No. 102 Dong, 107, and then intruded into the bend and stolen goods, but did not discover any stolen goods, and thus did not commit an attempted crime.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd a human habitation and stolen another's property, but he attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to AA prepared by a judicial police officer;

1. Each report on internal investigation (the search, investigation, search and investigation in the vicinity of the scene);

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, investigation reports (verification of criminal records, etc.), each judgment, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning personal confinement;

1. Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. The sentencing of aggravated repeated crimes pursuant to Article 35 of the Criminal Act is determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, family relation, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

[The favorable circumstances] The defendant acknowledged his mistake while making a confession of the crime of this case, and the defendant attempted to steal the property owned by the victim and did not cause any property damage.

(1) The crime of this case is committed at night by the Defendant’s intrusion upon the victim’s residence and attempted to steals property, and the nature of the crime is not good. The Defendant appears to have caused considerable anxiety due to the Defendant’s crime; the Defendant and the victim did not reach an agreement on the recovery of damage; and the Defendant committed the same kind of crime to the extent of four times.