Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for four months, respectively.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, each.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 12, 2016, the Defendants violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) entered the victim E’s house of the 301 victim of the Gyeongdong-gun D building 14:30 on May 14:30, 2016, and opened an entrance by entering the front door password that Defendant A was aware of while living together with the victim prior to his thought to steals property, and opened the entrance.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly intruded upon the victim’s residence.

2. The Defendants were aware of the victim’s neighboring residents and were aware of the fact that the victim E’s market value at the same time and at the same time and at the same place was transferred to a gambling room that prepared one computer with a total amount of one million won. However, the Defendants were unaware of the victim’s neighboring residents.

As a result, the Defendants jointly attempted to steal the victim's property and attempted to commit it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant laws concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 342, 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of attempted special larceny) of the same Act, Article 2(2)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of intrusion upon joint residence, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. Attempted mitigation of crimes (as to special larceny) Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to special larceny);

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

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant B) Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. The circumstances of the suspension of execution (the defendants) are not easy in that they committed an intrusion upon another person’s residence and attempted to steals a computer after preparing for the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the fact that the defendants repented the defendants' mistakes, all of them are the primary offenders, and there are no actual damages, etc. shall be considered as favorable circumstances to the defendants.