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

1. On April 2016, the Defendant: (a) obtained the C-wheeled Vehicle No. number plate lost by the victim B in front of Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si; and (b) did not take necessary procedures, such as returning it to the victim; (c) he/she thought he/she had to have.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, attached C number plates, which he/she acquired, to the S Q125’s “FREEWING” Oralab, and continued to operate the above Oralab until it was controlled by the police officer before the “E Hospital located in Pyeongtaek-siD” around October 22, 2016. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27609, Oct. 22, 2016>

Accordingly, the defendant used the marks of public offices for the purpose of exercising the rights, and exercised the illegally used air defense.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Detailed data on stolen and stolen vehicles;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the embezzlement of deserted articles in possession), Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of unlawful use of official marks) (the occupation of unlawful use), Article 238(2) and Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of an event for the protection of unlawful use air);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of embezzlement of deserted articles from selective possession

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter referred to as the following favorable circumstances): The circumstances favorable to the situation, such as the fact that the number plate of the disabled disabled person was attached to his own other disabled person without returning it to the victim and was operated for a considerable period of time: The confession, reflectivity, and the fact that there was no history of criminal punishment except for the fact that he was punished by a fine not exceeding 100,000 won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act around 1989: The sentence, such as the age, family relationship, and criminal background, etc., of the defendant: four months of imprisonment and the suspension of execution of two years or more; and