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

Seized evidence No. 3 shall be confiscated.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On May 9, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc., in support of Suwon Fagwon, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Gagsung vocational training prison on March 28, 2014.

[2] On May 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed an intrusion on the house in which fire occurred at night, with a view to theft of another person’s property; and (b) attempted to intrude after opening the E apartment 2307 Dong 102, which is the residence of the victim D located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul; (c) however, the Defendant failed to go back due to the wind of the victim who returned home.

Accordingly, the defendant attempted to steal the victim's property by destroying and impairing part of the structure at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Beds and photographs;

1. Investigation report (the second investigation against the victim);

1. Investigation report (to hear statements from victims D);

1. Previous convictions: Judgment on the defendant's assertion of inquiry, inquiry results, investigation report (the same type of previous convictions and attachment of the judgment)

1. Although the defendant alleged by the defendant was removed by putting the crime prevention window in his hand in order to intrude into the office of the victim, the defendant's act merely does not constitute an act of destroying part of a structure, and thus, special larceny under Article 331 of the Criminal Act is not established.

2. According to each of the above evidence, before the Defendant committed the instant crime, the Defendant’s act was in a state that the victim’s house and the house scam were not omitted from the window, and it was recognized that one of the Defendant’s house scams was left by hand and left from the window scam, and thus, the Defendant’s act was detrimental to the usefulness of the crime scams by exercising force on the window scamscams of the crime scams.