A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 16, 2014, at around 22:25, the Defendant, a victim C in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, intruded into the office through a window that had not been corrected by putting up the second floor up on the outside of the building, using the steel stairs installed outside the building, and followed the west in the knife in the knife in the knife, and the market price of the victim in the warehouse, carried the knife in the knife, and did not go through a wind exposed to the police officer sent out after being locked at the knife at the knife site.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the reason for sentencing”), [the scope of the recommended punishment in the sentencing guidelines] of the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter “the reason for sentencing”), in the mitigated area (from August to January 1): In the case of intrusion upon general property (the scope of the recommended punishment in the sentencing guidelines), the special mitigated area (from August to January 6): (4) in the case of intrusion upon a place other than the indoor residential space, there are the same criminal records in the instant case even before the decision for sentencing was made; and (4) in the case of intrusion larceny as in the instant case, the fact that the crime

However, the Defendant did not have any previous conviction since 2002; the crime of this case was committed in attempted crimes; the crime of this case was committed in an attempted crime; the crime place was not a space where the injured person had resided repeatedly or continuously; the Defendant was committed in favor of the police, such as the erroneousness and reflects by the police; and other favorable circumstances, and various sentencing factors indicated in the arguments and records of this case, and determined a lower sentence than the lower sentence of the recommended sentencing guidelines as set forth in the Disposition above.