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

On November 13, 2013, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Incheon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 21st of the same month.

The Defendant was willing to commit the larceny of vehicles parked in Gangnam-gu Seoul in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the intention to commit the larceny, and prepared the number 100 Oral Ba and the date divers.

Therefore, around 01:00 on August 4, 201, the Defendant: (a) found the Grane car owned by the victim F, which was parked in the “E” parking lot located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) reported the network by C; and (c) attempted to steal cash, precious metal, etc. using the drack on the date prepared by the Defendant, but failed to discover money and valuables stored in the vehicle.

In addition, from around that day to around 08:00 on the same day, the Defendant attempted to steal another person’s cash, precious metals, etc. by the same method nine times in total, such as the list of crimes in attached Form C, but failed to discover money and valuables.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. Each statement in F, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N;

1. A criminal investigation report (a statement of damage caused byO);

1. The current status of each motor vehicle damage photograph and the DNA comparison results (No. 8 No.);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports;

1. Articles 342 and 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the reason why such mitigation shall be taken into account in confession, reflectivity, and circumstances leading to the crime);

1. Suspension of execution is more than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the first head of the ruling on the grounds for the foregoing consideration and the same criminal and the point of view of persons involved in the latter and latter concurrence).