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

1. At around 13:56 on July 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) placed in the “Yemank Factor” D points of the Victim C’s Operation in Pariju City B, where the victim’s attention was neglected; and (b) put in the Defendant’s handbane 1 punishment equivalent to KRW 9,00,00 in the market price of the victim’s possession, which was suffering from the cresh of the victim’s care being neglected; and (c) put it into the Defendant’s handbag.

2. At around 14:00 on July 18, 2015, the Defendant came to 1 punishment equivalent to KRW 89,000 in the market price of the victim’s possession in other places, where the victim’s attention was neglected, and 1 punishment equivalent to KRW 39,60 in the market price.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property two times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Receipts:

1. Application of CCTV closure photographs and Acts and subordinate statutes on damaged objects;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

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

1. Consideration such as the fact that the defendant under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act repents his mistake, that there is no past record of punishment heavier than the fine, that the amount of damage is not so significant, and that all damaged goods are recovered;