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

On May 8, 2014, at around 13:40, the Defendant brought KRW 235,000 in cash owned by the victim C, using a gap in the location of a motor vehicle to dispose of the goods, at the “D convenience store” operated by the victim C in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The crime of larceny in general property [special mitigation] is a crime of living style [decision of sentence] in the mitigated area (4-10 months) (special mitigation] (the crime in this case]. The defendant committed another crime even though he was punished by a fine for the same kind of crime three times as a fine, since the convenience point was stolen by the cash inside the safe place between the employees and the employees, and the victim's wish to be punished is disadvantageous.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is recognized to commit the crime, the damage has been recovered, the defendant's difficult economic situation has also become the cause of committing the crime, and the fact that the defendant is receiving mental treatment due to depression, etc. is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, occupation, etc., shall be determined as the disposition.