[criminal power] On November 14, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. in the Sungnam Branch of Suwon District Court on November 22, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2019.

Although the indictment of this case does not contain a final and conclusive statement on the defendant, it does not seem that the final and conclusive statement on the judgment is recognized by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and even if the statement is corrected, it would hinder the defendant's exercise of right to defense. Thus, the final and conclusive statement on the judgment ex officio without modification of the indictment is recognized as concurrent crimes under the latter part of

【Criminal Facts】

On November 14, 2017, around 12:00, the Defendant driven, without the consent of the above C, a lub trees C parked in front of the lub trees children’s park located in 13-19, 13-19, the lub trees C parked and used temporarily until November 17, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C Vehicle theft report;

1. Suspect E-mail and a copy of the conversation and driver's license;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal records, references to criminal records, reports on the results of confirmation of the previous dispositions, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the judgment rendered by Act No. 2019 high-level 18277;

1. Relevant Article 331-2 of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine for the crime;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Article 39(1) of the Exemption of Punishment Act (In full view of the content of the instant crime and the overall sentencing circumstances and the details of fraud in the judgment that became final and conclusive, it appears that no more severe punishment would have been pronounced even if the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the case on which a final and conclusive judgment was rendered. Therefore, taking account of equity, the Defendant is exempted