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

The Defendant stated in the indictment on April 25, 2013 as “No. 23, 2013.” However, this is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “No. 25, 2013.” (Evidence No. 10, 29, 45, and 57). As such, the Defendant’s amendment is made as above.

At around 18:40, along with Nitcoco Korea operated by the victim Costco Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon-gu, 116-3, scambling each other by thefting clothes from the inner clothes of the first floor of the Citcocococo Ltd., and the security personnel D was negligent in monitoring the security personnel D, and the defendant was placed in a temporary room where he was put in two panty panty typ, a man who was displayed in the showroom, with the market price of 64,980 won at the market price of 57,980 won at the same method, with two panty panty panty typ, a woman who was placed in the showroom.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property together with C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged articles;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. It is highly likely that the crime of this case was committed in addition to the fact that a juvenile protective disposition was issued twice due to the same crime as the one of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the grounds for sentencing). However, the value of the stolen object is not so large, and there is no substantial damage by purchasing the stolen object after the recovery at the site, except the above juvenile protective disposition, it is against the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.