A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2013, at around 15:05, the Defendant infringed upon the victim E, a lessee, who had been living for about 20 days prior to the death of the her head of the household in Kimhae-si, by starting a gate, opening a door, and newly opening a new gate at the place where D, who is a woman living together with the her head of the household in Kimhae-si, was living in the her place of residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing in the following year) and Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution are asserted to the effect that since the defendant entered the residence of the victim to confirm the problem of escape at the time of the instant case, this is not contrary to the social rules and constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the defendant can find the fact that the defendant opened gate in order to meet D and entered the victim's secret with new gates. In light of the background, method, and degree of the above recognition, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for legitimate act, and thus

In light of the fact that the defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime in the past and that there is no agreement with the victim, etc., the defendant needs to be punished strictly, but the defendant is recognized as having entered his/her residence without the victim's consent, and the defendant is against the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and the motive and condition of the crime in this case.