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

1. At around 14:20 on May 11, 2012, the Defendant: (a) removed the theft-prevention text in a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife that knife

2. At around 12:40 on May 19, 2012, the Defendant attempted to larceny: (a) removed the theft prevention text in an amount equivalent to KRW 11,200, 11,200, which is the victim’s ownership, of which the employee’s surveillance was neglected at the h operated by the F victim G of the F victim G of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan City, and then failed to commit the theft prevention text by putting it into the bags that he had prepared in advance, and then putting it into the bags that he had prepared for the theft prevention text; and (b) putting it out to the employee, not having been aware of it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning G and D;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Receipts:

1. Photographs (such as seized articles, CCTV screen, etc.);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (suspect photographs, etc.);

1. Larceny of relevant criminal facts: Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act for attempted larceny;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (in addition to a fine, no criminal defendant has been punished by imprisonment with prison labor or heavier, and considering all the circumstances, including the fact that the degree of damage caused by the instant crime is minor);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reasons under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act of confiscation;