On August 27, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended sentence for attempted larceny at the Seoul Central District Court on August 27, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 4, 2013.

On May 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was requested by the victim D to sell the unfluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, and (b) conspired to steal E, F, G

Accordingly, at around 10:00 on May 2, 2012, the Defendant, along with E, H, and G, entered the way to “J” located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Seoul, for the Defendant and E, saying, “I see that I would see that I would see the person who lives in fluencies, and you will sell it,” and the Defendant and E went back to the J due door with the victim’s fluence, and immediately left the back, and Ha and G set the above fire at the intersection of the SM5 car set up in advance.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the statues together with E, H, and G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement of each police statement about D and C;

1. Investigation report (a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against public prosecution E once);

1. Previous convictions: The Defendant alleged that he did not conspired with the Defendant and that he did not have any intent to commit theft, even though he was aware of the absence of the purchaser at the time of the instant case, he did not intend to make any appraisal and any further statement outside of the Section 19-3, and that he did not intend to commit a theft. However, even when considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, including the Defendant’s statement at investigation agencies, the Defendant excluded the non-Possession of the instant case from the victim’s possession against the victim’s will in a cooperative relationship at the scene, H, G, time, and location at the time of the instant crime, and moved it to his or a third party’s possession, as both the Defendant’s perception and the intention of unlawful acquisition are recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 21, Feb. 21, 2014).