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

1. On February 22, 2013, at around 04:44, the Defendant: (a) received a resident registration certificate of F in the name of the victim E, an employee, from the “DPC bank” located on the Won-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocheon-si C and the second floor; and (b) borrowed a mobile phone from the victim’s victim E; (c) received one unit of galthoptian mobile phone at the market price of KRW 1,000,000 from the victim; and (d) stolen the said mobile phone without returning the aforementioned mobile phone.

2. At around 04:00 on February 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim I, an employee, with one cell phone of 90,000,000 won in the market value of the victim, who was the victim of the carcter, using the cresh in the cresh of the carcter, at “HPC room” located on the first floor of the YE-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocheon-gu G, Seocheon-gu.

3. On March 5, 2013: (a) around 03:37, the Defendant stolen the victim L, an employee, from the “KPC bank” located in Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City J and the second floor, with only one cell phone of 900,000 won in the market value of the victim, who was in a cater by making use of the gaps in which the victim, who was an employee, was in the cater, and one hundred thousand won in cash located in the gallon juri-si mobile phone of 90,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the statement of each police officer prepared to E, L, and I;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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 (see the following reasons for sentencing)

1. In light of the fact that the defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, and the damage has not been recovered, the nature of the instant crime by the defendant is not good. However, the fact that the defendant currently is 19 years of age and has no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the degree of damage, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant.