피고인은 2016. 5. 5. 19:00 경 서울 광진구 B에 있는 C 점에서 위 마트 직원의 감시가 소홀한 틈을 타 피해자 D 소유인 시가 6,600원 상당의 크리 넥스 각 티슈 콤비 팩 1개, 시가 560원 상당의 고래 밥 1개, 시가 1,200원 상당의 초코 더블 1개, 시가 2,400원 상당의 해태 신당동 떡볶이 1개, 시가 2,000원 상당의 제주 삼 다수 (2L) 2 병 등 합계 12,760원 상당의 상품을 미리 준비한 쇼핑백과 손가방에 넣어 가 절취하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the grounds for sentencing of the punishment of imprisonment, and the reasons for choosing the punishment;

1. Scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines: From August to June, one year and six months, the mitigated area (from August to June) of Class IV (the mitigated area) of the general property; in cases where the person has intruded into places other than indoor residential spaces (the four types);

2. Determination of sentence does not have a substantial value of the stolen property that the defendant has stolen, and the damage has been recovered by being arrested immediately after the crime, the fact that the defendant recognized all the crimes in the police is favorable to the defendant, or since 2010, the defendant has been punished by a fine of larceny, and the same crime has been repeated. As such, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, but the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, taking into account the conditions of sentencing in the trial process of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, and circumstances before and after the crime (the sentence of a lower punishment than the recommended punishment in the sentencing guidelines within the scope of law, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant).