A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 16, 2017, at around 02:30, the Defendant: (a) opened a closed door (202) in which the victim D was living in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C2, the Defendant: (b) opened a closed door-to-door visit and intruded; and (c) cut off 20,000 won of the market price of the victim owned by the victim, which was immediately after the opening of the door-to-door, with one color-to-explosing one, and one b0,000 won of the market price of the victim owned by the victim; (d) one b0,000 won of the student card, resident registration certificate, cash 15,00 won of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Investigation report (the result of the analysis of CCTV images around the place of crime), investigation report (the confirmation and collection of additional damaged articles);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as photographs of damaged scene;

1. Grounds for sentencing Article 330 of the Criminal Act with respect to the crime;

1. The scope of the sentencing guidelines recommended by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court Sentencing / [type] the basic area [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] of the thief for general property / [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] 1 year - 2 years and 6 months;

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to sentence, committed the instant crime while under the suspension of execution due to the same crime, and that the Defendant’s liability for the instant crime is considerably heavy, and that the risk of the instant crime is not small, it is inevitable to severely punish the Defendant.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake was divided and did not repeat again, the value of stolen goods is relatively small, and if this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the judgment of the suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor imposed on the Defendant would be invalidated, and the fact that the Defendant’s appeal against the instant crime appears to be reliable while taking advantage of the fact that the Defendant’s appeal against the instant crime was committed under the influence of alcohol and was deemed to have been reliable. In addition, the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc.