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

1. On March 28, 2017, around March 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed theft of a structure at night; (b) around March 28, 2017, at around 01:30, up to the “E” office operated by the victim D (54 tax) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Section 105; (c) opened a corrected door by inserting the entrance door door door, and intrudes into the said office; and (d) by impairing into the said office, one computer was stolen at a price equivalent to 1.2 million won at the market price installed on the books of the office.

2. On April 23, 2017, around April 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around April 22 and around April 23, 2017, the Defendant: (b) caused the theft of a structure at night; (c) around April 23, 2017, in the office of “G” operated by the Victim FF (444 years old) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seoul; (d) opened a corrected door by inserting the wooden machine into the cresh; and (e) intrudes the said office; and (e) took one computer at the market price of 200,000 won, which is at least 20,000 won in the market price installed on the office’s book, and one digital painting at the market price of 10,000

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A written statement of F and D;

1. Investigative reports (related to hearing statements of victims);

1. A criminal investigation report (related to conducting the verification of CCTV images around the scene), a criminal investigation report (related to tracking routes of suspect movement after committing a crime), and a criminal investigation report (related to the verification of additional crimes of a suspect);

1. Application of the police seizure protocol and the statutes on the list of seizure;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 11 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate deaf-mutes;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant’s ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes, although he/she is deemed to have a physical disability with hearing and intellectual disability 1, in light of the background of the crime, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior after the crime, etc., was in a state that the Defendant was lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

This is because it does not seem.