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

On June 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 16:50 on June 18, 2013, at the lives store operated by the shopping company operated by the Defendant, the Defendant stolen the Defendant’s property by having in advance one set of 124,670 won in total the market price where the employees’ surveillance was neglected, and one set of 124,670 won in a store where the employees’ surveillance was displayed at the store, one set of 124,670 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on receipts of goods;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., reasoning of the suspended sentence) are that the defendant has the same kind of force on several occasions, and the execution of a sentence shall be suspended by considering all of the following factors: (a) the defendant is aged; (b) the circumstances leading up to the crime; (c) the details leading up to the crime;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.