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

On June 13, 2019, around 00:50, the Defendant 100 won in cash owned by the victim C located on the upper part of the “D,” which was operated by the victim C at Sinpopo City B, by putting the bricks attached to the D upper glass, broken up by breaking it into a brick, and breaking the glass windows installed at the door, and putting the body into a shoulder glass window, and 100,000 won in cash owned by the victim who was placed on the well inside the above upper part of the store.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen property by destroying part of the structure at night and impairing the structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to C (including E statements);

1. Investigation report (Attachment related to bricks used at the time of committing the crime: Spare photographs used at the time of committing the crime), application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 331(1) and 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act are disadvantageous to the defendant that has a majority of the same criminal records.

However, the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship and health status (class 3 intellectual disability), including the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, shall be determined like the order.