However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, at around 18:50 on February 14, 2017, at E convenience stores operated by the Victim D in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around 18:50 on February 14, 2017, provided that, between F and G are responding to other customers, at the market price equivalent to KRW 1,650, the victim’s market price displayed in the cooling house.

L. A. L. theft was committed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement concerning G in the police statement protocol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes written in the statement prepared by the F;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., favorable circumstances deemed as the following grounds for sentencing):

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2 (2) of the Criminal Act for observation of protection and observation;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment for the sentencing criteria / [type] the basic area [the scope of the recommended punishment] of the theft against general property from April to August of imprisonment; and

2. In extenuating circumstances, under which the Defendant was sentenced to punishment several times for the same kind of crime, the Defendant did not have any record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment, confessions a crime, the value of the damaged goods is minor and the damaged goods have been returned at the scene of the crime, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the recommended punishment, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex