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

On September 1, 2012, at around 17:00 on September 1, 2012, the Defendant stated the victim D indictment in Daejeon-gu Daejeon as “F” but this is obvious that it is a clerical error of “D” (Evidence Nos. 15, 27 of the Evidence Records).

Then, B, after shopping in Emart, moved to a place which is not a snow of people, she reported the network around B, and the Defendant saw that the market price of 50,020 won or more, 1,500 won or more of the market price, 2 cans, 2 cans, 3,200 won or more of the market price and 3,90 won or more of the market price, and 2 cans, 2 cans, 3,800 won or more of the market price, and 3,90 won or more of the high-exclusive Spaz, 1 box, 1 box, 3,800 won of the market price, and 3,800 won of the market price.

Accordingly, the Defendant, together with B, stolen property equivalent to the total market value of 67,120 won owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Invoice;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant with the reason for the suspended sentence requires strict punishment in light of the fact that the criminal records of a fine due to larceny and the criminal records of a criminal defendant have been repeated three times, and the same kind of crime has been repeated. However, the amount of damage is not so significant, the payment of the amount of the stolen object lasts and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, the depth is against the defendant's depth, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, criminal record relationship, and the motive for the crime of this case, etc. are considered as the condition for the sentencing specified in the arguments of this case.