A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On October 19, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor for special robbery or for special robbery at the Seoul Central District Court, and on February 21, 2012, the same court was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny or for intrusion upon residence. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny or intrusion upon residence at the Incheon District Court and completed the execution of the sentence on November 23, 2016.

On July 18, 2018, at around 13:04, the Defendant entered the victim C's house located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and opened a toilet window with no locking device, and entered the house, and two arms with a half of the amount of KRW 5 million owned by the victim and a half of the amount of KRW 5 million in the inside and outside of the house, as well as a half of the amount of KRW 20 million owned by the victim, and a half of the amount of KRW 4 million in the amount of KRW 20 million owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence, and stolen the property worth 37,300,000 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. A previous conviction in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the same type of larceny judgment, etc.), a copy of each judgment, and a criminal investigation report (written results of search of prisoners);

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against each part of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. C’s statement;

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. Each investigation report (in relation to the on-site CCTV investigation, the specification of a suspect, moving-in and suspect vehicle before and after the crime, verification of the suspect A's oral and on-site conformity, identity of the seized articles and the suspect at the time of committing the crime, the attachment of sufficient comparative photographs, and CCTV images around the residence of the suspect;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel denied that there was no theft by intrusion upon the instant residence, but the Defendant and his defense counsel marks up the sufficient and CCTV discovered at the victim’s house recognized by each evidence of the above holding.