However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On January 23, 2020, the Defendant committed the first crime on January 23, 2020, at around 02:29, at a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant, for the purpose of theft of cash, opened an entrance by using the key that the Defendant received from the victim at the time of the said restaurant to be the principal assistant at the time of the said restaurant, and did not return, and opened the entrance and intrude into the entrance, and then, the cash amount of KRW 70,000,000,000, which was kept in the Kabter’s depository.

2. The Defendant committed the second crime on January 23, 2020, at around 04:44 on the same day, intruded into the restaurant by the same method, and carried out a cash of KRW 130,000 in cash, which was kept in the Kitter’s depository.

Accordingly, the Defendant invadedd the building managed by the victim at night twice as above, and stolen the total amount of KRW 200,000 in cash owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. A fire-proof report (on-site CCTV images and tracking of suspects);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (specific suspects);

1. The relevant statutory penalty under Article 330 of the Criminal Act for the crime is stipulated only as a statutory penalty.

After completion of the first crime, the Defendant stated that “after approximately two hours, the Defendant invadedd the cafeteria of the same victim, thereby thefting it.”

(1) In full view of the time interval between crimes and the contents of the Defendant’s statement, etc., it is reasonable to see that the second crime as indicated in the holding is a crime separate from the first crime based on the new criminal intent and the first crime.

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was not completely recovered, and the victim did not receive a letter of apology.

The Defendant fled on the sentencing date.

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