Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 2018, at around 01:00, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance door password, which was known to the victim D in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) opened the victim D’s house; and (c) destroyed 3 of the crime prevention windows installed at the window by drinking out the door, on the ground that the height of the door, which sold to the victim, does not fall under one of the two maths.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Articles 366 and 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of fines (such as the absence of criminal records, the amount of damage to the victim is compensated and agreed upon, and circumstances to be considered in the course of committing the crime)

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. Of the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) was justifiable to transfer the two maths to the victim; and (b) the said maths to the victim so far; (c) however, the Defendant was able to raise himself by entering the victim’s house on the premise that the victim, who did not receive the Defendant’s phone, neglected the said maths; and (d) having the said maths.

On May 19, 2018, the Defendant, at around 01:00, obtained a password of the entrance, which was known in advance, from the victim’s house stated in the above facts constituting the crime, and stolen the victim’s property by impairing the victim’s residence at night, with one math, high-sea feed and one toilet in the aggregate amounting to KRW 714,00,00 in the market price.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's intention of intrusion and the intention of theft as long as there is no reasonable doubt, and evidence to acknowledge this is insufficient.