However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

From February 1, 2013, the Defendant is a person who has operated an electronic component manufacturing business entity “C (hereinafter “D”)” in Ansan-si (hereinafter “C”) from around February 1, 2013.

While the Defendant, while operating the said Company, used the pro rata as materials after being supplied with the pro rata (hereinafter “victim”) by the damaged Company, the Defendant offered that F, an employee of the victimized Company, would provide the pro ratas at a discounted price by 30% below the market price, which was accepted, and committed the following crimes.

On May 2015, the Defendant, while being aware of the fact that the said F was stolen by the victimized Company, purchased a pro rata film equivalent to KRW 714,00 at the market price from F with the awareness of the theft of the pro rata in the said place of business, and acquired the stolen film equivalent to KRW 353,073,000 in total of 36 times from around that time to February 2018, by purchasing the pro rata film owned by F with the victim Company at KRW 247,182,00 in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police in relation to F;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (including documents attached to the details of passbook transactions);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

1. The sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) acquisition of a large quantity of stolens over a long period of time for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) dolusent intentional negligence; (c) detention was made in this case for a considerable period of time; (d) there was no same military force; (e) deposit of KRW 120,000 for the victim of larceny; and (e) other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’