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

At around 16:30 on August 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) intruded the structure managed by the victim E by entering the store room connected to the store through the store entrance for the purpose of stealinging things; (b) 30,000 won in cash owned by the victim in the room; (c) 14,00 won in the market price; (d) 14 km in the aggregate of the market price of 8,00,000 won in the market price; and (e) 3,000 won in cash owned by the victim in the room; (e) 1,40,000 won in the market price; and (e) 1,40,000 won in total in the market price; (e) 3, driver’s license; (f) 1,000,000 won in the Korean bank block card; (f) 1, 200,000 won in the foreign bank ck card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A E-document;

1. A report on internal investigation (attaching photographs on the scene of occurrence);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 15)

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

1. Although there are several criminal convictions having the same kind of reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the fact that the instant crime was committed again is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the fact that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, the fact that part of the damaged goods have been returned, and the age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered.