1. A theft: (a) on June 30, 2014, at the E hospital where the victim D was working at a middle school from the person who suffered damage from a middle school in the middle school located C, the Defendant stolen, one copy of a passbook (Account Number F) in the name of the victim, who was the victim in the vehicle, by cutting off the siren from the middle school from the person who suffered damage from the middle school in the middle school located at the middle school; and (b) on the same day, around 23:18, the Defendant continued to commit theft, at the cash payment machine managed by the victim corporate bank in the above hospital, posted the passbook in the above name, entered the password in the passbook, and then stolen KRW 2,00,000,000 in cash.

2. On June 30, 2014, at around 23:06, the Defendant used computers, etc.: (a) posted a passbook in the above D name at the automatic cash payment period managed by the Victim Enterprise Bank; (b) entered the password and transfer amount without authority; and (c) obtained the financial benefits of KRW 18 million in total by transferring the sum to the accounts of the Saemaul Cooperative Federation in the name of the Defendant to three times every three times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transaction specifications and transaction details by account;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (a point of intention) and Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 subparag. 1 subparag. 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes are against the Defendant’s reason for sentencing, and the fact that the Defendant recognizes the crime was considered as favorable to the Defendant.

However, as the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment over several times, and even if the amount of damage is not high, the damage is restored or no agreement is reached with the victim, it is reasonable to sentence the defendant to the punishment.

Therefore, the punishment is determined as ordered.