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

On March 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened a door at the entrance entrance of a dry field located in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Masan-si; (b) around 13:30 on March 24, 2016, the Defendant stolen the victims’ property worth KRW 4,402,00 in total, including KRW 52,00,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 1,50,000, KRW 1,50,000, KRW 320,000 in cash owned by the victims; and (c) KRW 1,00,000, KRW 7,100,000, KRW 320,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 4,402,00, KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared D or B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (to attach photographs to theCCTV image images, stegres and hats);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and observation are as follows: (a) considering the fact that the Defendant committed a larceny-related crime under the same law and committed the instant crime despite the record of a fine and of a suspended sentence, it is not good that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, the defendant's mistake and reflects, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victims, the fact that it does not constitute grounds for disqualification for suspended execution, and the defendant does not repeat the same crime again.

The suspension of execution that orders the observation of protection as specified in the order shall be sentenced in consideration of the fact that it is different, etc.