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

From April 2014 to December 4, 2015, the Defendant was a person who was in charge of store management, sales, inventory adjustment, etc. as a salesperson at an event shop, etc. operated by the victim D located under the modern department store located under the first floor of the department store located under the 2077 as a salesperson, and was in charge of sales management, sales, and inventory adjustment.

On February 1, 2015, the Defendant cut off the victim’s market price of KRW 544,00,00 owned by the victim, which was located in the “E” store located in another underground 1st floor event site in the modern department store, from March 2014 to December 3, 2015, the Defendant cut off the sum of KRW 85,100,200 in total of 389 times, as shown in Appendix I-VI.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D, G, and H;

1. Each statement;

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. Each statement of transactions by banks;

1. Each investigation report (with regard to the timing of confirmation, etc. of the time when seized articles are displayed at shops, the estimation and time of display of victim D's damage, hearing of work progress G and calculation of additional damage amount, attaching a certificate of deposit transaction details, and calculation of the amount of final damage).

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the method of crime, frequency of crime, and the fact that the same kind of crime has been systematically repeated;

1. Relevant Article 332 of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following reasons for sentencing): The defendant stolen a large quantity of goods from many victims, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the applicable methods of the crime.

The defendant is in depth against the favorable circumstances.

Among stolen goods, some of the damaged goods of the victim I, J, K, L, and M were returned to the victims.

The next is late with the victim D.