1. On February 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) in a “D” restaurant in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) on February 22, 2017, in which the victim F, the mother of the business owner E in the place, who was an employee, frighter of the victim, who was posted on the victim’s cell phone case of the victim who was posted on the said restaurant in a cafeteria-gu; and (c) in which the victim F, who was the mother of the business owner E in the place, was negligent in monitoring his/her duties in a restaurant; (d) one copy of the

As a result, the theft was committed.

2. On January 29, 2017, at around 15:51:13, the Defendant: (a) put in “I Et” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, in the automatic payment machine of F’s mobile phone number for the management of the victim’s name in an automatic cash payment machine; and (b) divided the card password, which was known in advance, and withdrawn 50,000 won in cash from that time;

2. Until December 23, 200, a total of KRW 17,140,000 was stolen by withdrawing cash over 33 times in the same manner as written in the list of annexed crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on internal investigation and CCTV, each investigation report (specific suspect, etc.);

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. The basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the types of larceny in general property, the scope of which is recommended according to the sentencing criteria;

2. Circumstances favorable to reasons for sentencing: A continuous and repeated crime was committed over a short period of time, the amount of damage was significant in the amount of KRW 17 million, the damage was not yet recovered, and the defendant has a record of punishing the same kind of suspended sentence.