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

1. On May 11, 2015, at around 01:00, the Defendant opened an entrance at the E Hospital managed by the victim D in Jinju-si, Jin-si, Seoul, which was not corrected, and intruded into the said hospital into the said hospital, and stolen the air conditioners at the market price of 2,00,000 won in the treatment room, carrying the air conditioners at the rate of 2,00,000 won in his/her hand.

2. On May 11, 2015, at around 04:00, the Defendant opened a door in Gwon operated by the Victim F in Jin-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, at around 04:0, which had not been corrected, and intruded into the said council members, and stolen five points of the picture and one photograph equivalent to the total market value of eight million won, which is the victim’s possession, displayed at the contact room, and one photograph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of H and D;

1. A written statement;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph photographs, CCTV image data analysis pictures, investigation reports (Attachment to CCTV image data marked on a criminal-side surface), CDs, and investigative reports (hereinafter referred to as the “victim’s F Telephone Statement Hearing”);

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. As to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to editing disorder at the time of each of the instant crimes. Thus, according to the records, the Defendant may be recognized as having received medical treatment due to editing disorder on August 26, 2015. However, in light of all the circumstances such as the content of each of the instant crimes and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crimes, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above symptoms at the time of each of the instant crimes.

The above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a)the first offence recommendation;