A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, with the trade name of “C”, was a person who runs the interior business, and there was a dispute over the defect repair problem due to the interior construction of the victim’s residence contracted by the victim D.

On October 21, 2016, the Defendant, at around 11:50 on October 21, 2016, tried to open a door to the victim under the pretext that he/she should have the equipment, etc. left the victim’s residence, due to the defect repair problem in the E apartment house 1403 at the victim’s residence, and came out outside the victim’s present door door, and subsequently, was refused to open the victim’s door under the pretext that he/she should have the equipment, etc. left the victim’s residence. However, the Defendant attempted to open the crime prevention windows and shocks installed on the window in the above residence, and to damage the victim’s market value, which is the victim’s possession, and intrude into the said residence through the window, but the police officer called out after receiving a report on the victim’s side, was attempted to move out to the scene.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the accused in the second public trial records and the testimony by the accused in court;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on crime prevention windows and anti-debrising photographs of D residence;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 322, 319(1) (the attempted charge of intrusion upon residence) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The defense counsel asserts that his/her defense counsel's assertion of defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was to suspend his/her personal intrusion.

However, according to F's legal statement, it is recognized that the defendant removed the crime prevention window and the shock network, and attempted to open the window, but it was found that the defendant's office was removed until the police is removed from the window.

In light of the above facts, the defendant was voluntarily suspended from intrusion on the wind called out by the police without windows, and the defendant was voluntarily suspended.

shall be deemed to be.