When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On October 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) discovered and stolen the unexploital keys in the market price, which was displayed in the front of the Jininink-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Y 125CC, owned by the victim E, who was parked therein, around October 2, 2017, around 15:10, the Defendant stolen and stolen it.

2. On October 4, 2017, around October 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed theft by using a stolen key, such as the foregoing, on the road in front of the aforementioned DDDDD D’s house; and (b) thief, who was parked there, was a theft of the victim E’s market price at a level equivalent to KRW 3.5 million, 3.5 million in the market price owned by the victim E, which was parked therein.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of each crime, damaged articles, and photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to two suspended sentence under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and was sentenced to two suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the suspended sentence; the Defendant was subject to suspended indictment for the same kind of crime; and the key of the Ortotoba is first stolen; and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant committed the instant crime by theft of the Ortobaba, which is the key thereof, as it is difficult to view that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, if a judgment of selecting a criminal sentence becomes final and conclusive, the sentence of two suspended sentence becomes null and void and the sentence of one year and four months is to be served together. When considering the fact that the defendant returned damaged goods at the place of crime and agreed with the victim that the injured party is not subject to the punishment of the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflects in depth, this result is considered to be harsh to the defendant.