2.Provided, That the execution of imprisonment shall be postponed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. At night, around 22:00 on February 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) opened a entrance in front of “D (branch)” in which the Defendant, located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, was working as an employee; and (b) cut off KRW 1,500,000 in cash owned by the Victim E and stored in cash in the said place.

2. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft of KRW 1,300,000 in cash owned by the victim E, who was in custody of the cash in a location where the Defendant, located in Jung-gu, Seoul, was an employee, by forcing the door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door up to be destroyed and damaged; and (b) intruded into the body door door door, and was then stolen.

3. Larceny;

A. On December 23, 2014, at the “H Hospital” parking management office where the Defendant located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a parking management personnel, the Defendant stolen the cash amounting to KRW 893,000 owned by the victim J, in which he/she was living in his/her depository, in which he/she was working as a parking management personnel.

B. On January 6, 2015, around 2:18, the Defendant: (a) opened a cash custody in the “Lel” camera, which was corrected by the Defendant’s Defendant located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, who was working as an employee, as an employee; (b) cut off KRW 2,00,000 in cash on the part of the victim M that was kept in cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of M, A, J, and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs at the damaged site, CCTV-faging photographs, and CCTV-faging photographs;

1. Articles 329, 330, and 331 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the grounds for the punishment by discretionary mitigation);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (General Conditions in favor of the reasons for the suspended sentence);

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code should be criticized for the theft of the defendant for the reason of sentencing, but wrong.