Around 00:05 on December 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) taken a brupt of the victim E drinking alcohol at the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Second Class D “D”; and (b) stolen the victim’s Handbags equivalent to approximately 600,000 won at the market price owned by the victim, which was placed on his own initiative by taking advantage of the gaps of surveillance negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence 59(1) of the Pronouncement of Sentence 2003 (the term "when the conditions of the suspension of sentence are clearly known" means the case where a defendant would not be subject to the punishment even if he does not sentence, considering the degree of reflectability, comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Code. On the contrary, the interpretation is limited to the case where "when the circumstances of the suspension of sentence are obvious" means the case where the defendant does not have the depth of the crime, or it is not interpreted that the suspension of sentence cannot be always made if the defendant denies without confession of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003); the defendant is the first offender; the defendant is the first offender; the situation of the crime in this case and circumstances after the crime in this case].