Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant, at around 06:45, intruded into the Mart management office through the entrance that was not corrected by a cresh of surveillance, with the intent to steal money and valuables from the victim D, the main owner of the business in the 31st floor in the 31st floor in the Gyeongsan-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si.

2. According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months to be sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. on June 23, 2014 by the Busan District Court on July 1, 2014, and confirmed on July 1, 2014; and the facts constituting the crime of the said final judgment are the facts that the Defendant habitually stolen another’s goods or committed an attempted crime on seven occasions from March 26, 2014 to April 18, 2014.

However, in a case where a criminal who committed a crime, such as habitual larceny, under Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, has invaded upon his/her residence as a means of the crime, and only one of the crimes, such as habitual larceny, is established and does not constitute a separate crime. In addition to the crime, the criminal who committed the crime, such as habitual larceny, has been invaded upon his/her residence for the purpose of habitual larceny, in addition to the crime, and even in a case where he/she was found to have been aware of habitual larceny, if he/she did not constitute the crime of habitual larceny, etc., and constitutes only one crime of habitual larceny, etc., prescribed in the said Act, and does not constitute the crime of habitual larceny, etc., separate from the crime of habitual larceny, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1573, Dec. 26, 1984). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the facts charged in this case is found to have invaded upon another person’s final judgment.