A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A seized Rater (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

On February 29, 2012, the Defendant was released on February 29, 2012 and the parole period expired on June 16, 2012 while he was sentenced to imprisonment for special robbery in the Daejeon District Court for two years and six months.

On December 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 08:30 on December 17, 2012, the victim D (Nam, 59 years of age) located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si; (b) obtained a phone call from a male who became aware of his/her employee F while having known his/her name, to the effect that F was her husband but he/she became only the Defendant; (c) on the ground that F was her husband, even though he/she was in possession of the victim in the above carhouse, the Defendant laid down the above user source by placing it on the part of the above part of the Defendant’s bed and setting the Defendant’s bed KRW 88,00,000 by placing it on the part of the above bed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A report on the investigation of evidence submitted through a written estimate of the investigation report is deemed to be a clerical error in the written estimate of the investigation report;

1. Seizure records;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (a judgment and details of confinement);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

2. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

3. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

4. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act was committed by the Defendant, who was located on the underground of a commercial building and was destroyed by several persons including the victim, etc., and thus, there was a risk of causing a large number of casualties or a large amount of damage to property. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, even though the victim suffered approximately KRW 88 million damage due to the crime of this case, there was a significant agreement with the victim or a large recovery of damage.