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

1. Larceny of intrusion on night buildings;

A. On April 27, 2017, around 02:49, at the “E” restaurant operated by the victim C in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (a) cut off a 3-ro-long stamp (5,000 won at the market price owned by the victim, which is located in the “E” restaurant operated by the victim C; and (b) intruded into the cafeteria by using the gap where the neighboring surveillance was neglected; and (c) intruded into the cafeteria, thereby blocking the entrance; and (d) cut off the victim’s market price, which is KRW 5,00,000.

B. On July 6, 2017, at around 03:38 around 03:38, the Defendant stolen the property equivalent to KRW 3,000, a total market price, with one set of 23,00,000, the victim’s market price, which was placed on the top of the restaurant, after leaving the restaurant as “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E”), by breaking the victim C, thereby blocking the entrance by taking advantage of the gaps in which surveillance was neglected.

(c)

On July 7, 2017, around 04:02 around 04:02, at “E” restaurant, the same place as Paragraph 1-A of Article 1(1) of the Act, the Defendant: (a) removed the victim C; (b) invaded into the restaurant by the chairer who obstructed the entrance by taking advantage of the gaps of surveillance negligence around the surrounding area; and (c) stolen it with a set of coffee mixings equivalent to KRW 23,00, the market price of the victim’s possession on the top of the restaurant.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen property by impairing the victim's structure at night over three times in total.

2. On April 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was running “G cafeteria” operated by the Victim F in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, on April 27, 2017; and (b) was set aside by the victim’s leaving the crepan, thereby making use of the crepan in which surveillance in the surrounding area was neglected; and (c) was deducted from two previous exitss equivalent to KRW 4,000,

As a result, the theft was committed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. Police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports (Attachment to the screen by cutting down CCTV images);

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;