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

around 14:35 on October 30, 2019, the Defendant, “2019 Highly 3300”, without calculating two compacts equivalent to 24,190 won at a d direct store managed by the victim C in Goyang-gu Soyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyangyang-gu, Seoul, without calculating two compacts equivalent to 24,190 won at other market prices.

around 14:32 October 13, 2019, the Defendant: (a) committed theft by putting 2,000 won of the market price into a bank and 32,00 won of the high class 2,00 won of the market price in the D direct store managed by the victim E in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Soyang-gu; (b) the victim E was negligent in monitoring the victim and his employees.

Summary of Evidence

"2019 Highest 300"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. C’s statement;

1. Photographs of damaged articles, CCTV image materials, hereinafter referred to as "201 Highest 3721";

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV photographs in each field;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence requires a corresponding punishment because the defendant has committed the larceny repeatedly. However, considering the fact that the defendant appears to be suffering from dementia, there is no record of a more severe punishment than a fine, and the value of the stolen object is not large, and some of the stolen objects are recovered, the punishment shall be determined as above.