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

1. On May 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 01:00, at the D parking lot owned and managed by the owner of the D Building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim E used golf practice at the victim E; and (b) provided four golf bonds with a market price of at least 1,660,000 won owned by the victim on the Defendant’s vehicle and stolen the victim’s property.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1, was in the status of revocation of a car driver’s license from approximately 1.5 km to the front of the Defendant’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, but operated G benzSS car owned by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Photographs related to the case;

1. Application of the statutes on the register of driver's licenses;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, and the choice of imprisonment without prison labor;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the argument is true that the defendant had four golf loans of the victim, but the defendant did not intend to obtain the victim's intent to commit larceny or illegal acquisition because he attempted to return the above golf loans.

2. The criminal intent of larceny refers to the perception that the ownership of another person possessed by another person is transferred to him/herself or to a third party against his/her will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do971, Jan. 17, 1989); the intention of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention of excluding the right holder and to use and dispose of another person's property as his/her own property; there is no need to possess the economic benefit of the property permanently; and even in cases where he/she has deprived another person of his/her possession for the purpose of temporary use.