1. Larceny;

A. At around 03:00 on August 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) waiting for a taxi before the “D” convenience store located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si; (b) went to the victim E, waiting for a taxi; and (c) went on the upper part of the “Scar” mobile phone market price of the same person; and (d) stolen the escape.

B. At around 01:50 on August 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) used a gap in the victim’s surveillance in front of the H convenience store operated by the victim G in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seoul; (b) thereby, 2 liters of “clean spring water” owned by the victim and 3,500 won in total of six disease market prices.

2. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant embezzled, without taking necessary procedures such as returning the victim, at the taxi platform near the Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) 02:30, which was occupied by the Defendant; (b) and (c) 80,000,000 won in the market price of the EL GX mobile phone that was owned by the Defendant; and (d) embling the victim without taking necessary procedures.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to E and I;

1. G statements;

1. Police seizure records;

1. On-site, damaged photographs, and CCTV photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, such as seized articles;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account the following factors: (a) there is no agreement with the victims of reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders; (b) the amount of damage; (c) the return of damaged items; (d) the confession of crimes; and (e) other factors of sentencing as