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

On April 26, 2018, the Defendant, at around 16:00 on April 26, 2018, contained the amount of KRW 12,00,00 in an envelope that prepared for the total market value of KRW 12,00,00, and then stolen the property of the victim.

The Defendant, on June 1, 2018, carried out cash and merchandise coupons equivalent to KRW 52,00,000 in total, including KRW 52,00,00,00,00 from the cell phone on which the victim E was locked on the part of the victim's mobile phone owned by the victim, and the sum of KRW 52,00,000,00,000,000,000,000 in 17:0 to 17:10 on June 201, 2018.

They go back.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 495"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. On-site photographs " 2018 Highest 607";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant prepared in advance to commit a theft of an illness; (b) the Defendant committed a larceny in the previous case; (c) the Defendant had a record of committing a larceny in C; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime even if he was placed on several occasions on the ground that the amount of damage is low or that he was placed on several occasions on the ground of an agreement with the victim; (d) the damage was not recovered; and (e) the fact that the victim was not agreed with the victims, etc. are elements for sentencing that are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant seems to have recognized and reflected each of the crimes in this case, and that the amount of damage is significant.

It is difficult to regard the defendant as a crime of the same kind, and the defendant is more than the suspension of qualification.