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 of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 12, 2018, around 14:11 on August 12, 2018, the Defendant stolen and stolen 20,000 won as well as panty 20,000 won, including a panty 1 set and a panty 2 panty 2,00 won in front of the Victim C’s house in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and the first floor.

2. On October 19, 2018, around 11:48, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened a gate at the victim E’s house located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and intruded into the gate; and (b) panty 2, brode, brode 1, 1, and 1,000 won at the market price, including 50,000,000 won, for women, who are the wife of the victim, who is the wife of the victim, who is in the top of the second floor stairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Each written statement E and C;

1. CCTV photographs containing a crime scene;

1. A report on the occurrence of victim C;

1. Investigation report ( Results of CCTV verification made in the place of occurrence);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (amount of damage);

1. Relevant Articles 329 and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Probation and Social Service Order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [Public Prosecutor’s Office has ordered the Defendant to confiscate a DNA dives dives (Evidence No. 1), mining dives (Evidence No. 2), and verification color mar (Evidence No. 3) seized from the Defendant. However, it is not revealed that the investigation was conducted on the suspicion that the Defendant was worn by the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, and that the said goods were not stolen. Accordingly, the said goods cannot be deemed to have been provided for, or acquired in, the crime stipulated in Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the confiscation disposition is not taken.] The reason for sentencing is that the Defendant’s thief of this case does not have significant amount of damage, but may be suspected of the Defendant’s repetitive tendency.

In addition, the defendant has so far.