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 17:00 on September 21, 2012, the Defendant entered the convenience store in Osan-si, Gyeonggi-do, with C and D, to purchase goods at the convenience store. Finding one of the victim F owned by the victim F, which is located on a lid of the location, but the market price in which the SK Card, identification card, etc. is included, the Defendant A and D discovered fast-brupted brupted brupted brupting bre, and reported brupted brush, and C laid the brupt in their own bags.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property together with C and D.

2. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant violated the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and the Defendant, around 17:54 on September 21, 2012, paid the price of KRW 145,200 in total from G convenience stores in the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, and paid the price of KRW 145,200 in total and KRW 2.0 in tobacco emitting 2.0,00, and presented the F’s oneSK card, as if it was his card, to the employee of the convenience store in name, as if it was his card, and received 4.0 tobacco from the convenience store staff.

Accordingly, the Defendant used stolen F-owned credit cards and received property from the victim G manager.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant, D, or C

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 70(1)3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act concerning criminal facts (the use of stolen cards and the choice of imprisonment);

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act does not have any particular criminal history as well as fines twice to the defendant, and the crime in this case has been contingent, the damage of the victim was fully recovered, and the age of the defendant was 20 first half and has already been endeavored to return to society.