In a state where the Defendant lacks the ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to impulse control disorder, the Defendant:

1. On December 12, 2013, around 17:20 on December 17, 2013, at the “F store” for the victim E’s 2nd floor located in Busan Y C, the Defendant thefted one of the verification and color crowdfunding boxes equivalent to KRW 150,000 at the market price, which had been displayed in such a place by taking advantage of the gaps in surveillance negligence.

2. On February 2, 2014, from around 16:40 to around 17:45 on the same day, the Defendant stolen goods worth KRW 112,680, in total, the market price managed by the victim G by putting one mast, high volume of one math, and small amount of one math, and one mast, which were displayed at the same time by using a cresh in which surveillance was neglected.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. E statements;

1. Photographs (CCTV screen, etc.);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (victim Ephones, etc.);

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental illness and injury ( disability of impulse adjustment);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account the factors favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. for the reason of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the degree of damage from the instant crime is minor, etc.