However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. One seized knife (No. 1) shall be returned to the victim C.

1. Larceny;

On May 2018, the Defendant stolen the method of putting the victim C in shopping bags, which have been displayed for the sale by the victim C, in the Escusus located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and 4,000 won of the market price.

2. Special robbery;

The defendant, who is in need of alcohol, etc. while living in the old time, has taken advantage of stolen knife as above, and has expressed his mind to forcibly take the alcohol, alcohol, etc.

On June 3, 2018, at around 03:30, the Defendant collected the kitchen knife (16.7m in total length, 28.2m, knife length, 16.7m in knife length) from the perspective of convenience in Dongjak-gu managed by the Victim F (the age of 38), which is equivalent to the market value of 33,500 won, such as knife 2 knife, 4 knife, tobacco 2-A, etc., and demanded the victim to put the above things in the knife in the knife., the Defendant demanded the victim to put them in the knife in the knife., and made payment for the value of the things. The Defendant threatened the victim by inserting the above things.

The defendant, who was frightened by the above intimidation, 60,000 won in cash in the above envelope, brought the envelope out of the convenience store.

Accordingly, the defendant forcibly abused the victim's 33,500 won of the market price and 60,000 won of cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. Each protocol of seizure, each list of seizure, and photographs of seized articles;

1. A report on internal investigation (related toCCTV investigation) and a report on investigation (related to the theft of knife used by a suspect);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 334(2) and (1), and Article 333 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of special robbery and the choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be deemed concurrent crimes resulting from serious special robbery (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing has been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

1. Return to a victim;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from June to 18 years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Second offense: Special robbery;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (Special Robbery) Robbery

[Special Mitigation] Ad hoc Inspector

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area: Imprisonment of two years and six months to four years;

(b) Second offense: Theft; and

[Determination of Punishment] Types 2 (General thief) for thief in general property

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and six months. The scope of Recommendation according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

From June to April of 2, 200 to September of imprisonment (the lower shall be two years and six months of imprisonment, which is the lower limit of the scope of sentence for crimes No. 1; the upper limit shall be four years, which is the upper limit of the scope of sentence for crimes No. 1, plus nine months, which is 1/2 of the upper limit of the scope of sentence for crimes No. 2)

3. Determination of sentence: The crime committed in this case for a period of two and a half years and a three-year grace period is a case in which the defendant steals the kitchen knife, steals the kitchen knife, and forcibly taken property by threatening the manager of convenience store by threatening the stolen kitchen knife, and the liability for the crime is not easy in light of the method or means of the crime, and in particular, it appears that the defendant fear and mental shock of the victim subject to special robbery is reasonable; the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth; the amount of damage is not relatively large; the damage is confiscated; the damage is expected to be recovered by all seizure of the damaged goods; the victim is deemed to have reached an agreement with the victim of special robbery; the defendant's preference to the defendant; the defendant has no record of the crime other than the particular crime sentenced once due to the crime committed in this paper; the defendant has no record of the crime; the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive of the crime, and various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments.

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

Judges Park Il-young