1. Larceny;

A. On April 12, 2019, the Defendant: (a) at the D convenience store operated by the victim C in Hanam-si B on April 12, 2019, put the victim’s 1 disease in the market price of 2,800 won, which was located in the air conditioners, into the Defendant’s external dumping, and stolen it.

B. On May 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 08:36, at Gmaart operated by the Victim F, the Defendant: (b) laid down a small-scale 1 disease with the market price of KRW 2,400,00, which was displayed in a liquor ccop using a gap in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected; and (c) stolen it by inserting it into his external ccop.

2. The Defendant attempted to larceny at around 03:20 on April 13, 2019, at the convenience stores listed in the above paragraph (a) of the above 1, the Defendant attempted to larceny one disease in the amount of KRW 2,800, the market price of the victim C owned by the said victim C, which was located in the cooling house, by using the gaps in which H, an employee, was neglected to monitor, and entered the same inside the Defendant’s external dumping, and did not have the intention to commit it on the wind discovered to the above H.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of C, H and F;

1. On-site photographs, etc.;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal investigation;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 322 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Among concurrent crimes, each of the crimes in this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is a crime during the period of probation due to night building, intrusion, theft, etc., and it is not good that the crime was committed repeatedly at the time when the sentence of probation was sentenced due to the same crime, and that the crime was committed repeatedly at the time

Even after 2017, the defendant had been sentenced to five times of a fine due to larceny, and both sides of the fine are that the defendant has stolen the subject matter, etc. from the Maart's land.

However, the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects them.