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

On April 18, 2016, at around 03:23, the Defendant discovered and opened a rocketing car owned by the victim B that was parked in the 129 central river parking lot of the Namwon-si, Namwon-si, 129 central river, and entered into a non-Correctioned vehicle, and carried 60,000 won in cash owned by the victim, 200 tobacco, and D around.

As a result, the Defendant, together with D, stolen the property owned by the victim B from April 18, 2016 to May 2, 2016, and stolen another’s property over a total of 10 times, such as the list of crimes, from around April 18, 2016 to May 2, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. E, F, G, H, I, J, B, K, L, and M statements;

1. Reports on each occurrence of a theft;

1. Each report on internal investigation:

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for one year to 15 years; and

2. Review of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Sentence 1, 2, and 3 (Special Theft) (Scope of Recommendation) (Special Theft) for general property: The mitigated area (one month from April to October) for mitigation (one month for imprisonment) for general larceny; and

(b) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: April to June 10; and

3. The crime of this case is committed jointly with accomplices and repeatedly with multiple larcenys within a short time, and the risk thereof is not good in light of the crime, and the defendant has the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime.

The total theft amount is not a large amount due to favorable circumstances, the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case, and the defendant.