2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

1. Attempted special larceny;

A. On April 26, 2016, around 03:16, at around 03:16, the Defendant: (a) sealed the entrance door of the victim C in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; and (b) intruded inside the door to the victim to prevent the precious metal; (c) obstructed the victim’s precious metal; and (d) did not have any glass, but did not lead to attempted crimes.

B. The Defendant, at around 03:25 on the same day, destroyed the door door of the cell phone store in D’s cell phone operation, and intruded inside the door to the glass door in order to steal the victim’s handphone, and then failed to bring the victim’s handphone to an attempted attempt without shouldering it.

2. On April 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 03:37, the victim G in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was able to see the door doored up to be tented at a restaurant operated by the victim G in Jung-gu; and (b) intruded into the restaurant inside the above restaurant, and then stolen it with two cans of drinking water equivalent to KRW 2,00,000, the market value of the victim owned by the victim who was kept in the cooling house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of H, E, and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs following a CCTV closure;

1. Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 342 and 331 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted special larceny) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act or more;