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

On July 13, 2019, the Defendant acquired stolen goods at KRW 100,000,00, even though he knew of the fact that “C convenience store” located in Daegu Dong-gu B, Daegu-gu, about 04:00, the market value of the victim E, which he stolen from D, is equivalent to KRW 1 million.

In addition, the Defendant acquired stolen goods worth KRW 6,150,00,000 from Daegu Subdivision to September 22, 2019, in total, on seven occasions as indicated in the crime inundation list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to D, F and G;

1. Relevant Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

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

1. Even before the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Probation and Social Service Order, the defendant committed the crime of this case in addition, even though he had the record of punishment by acquiring stolen goods even before the punishment was made.

However, the sentencing conditions stated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, frequency of crimes, the value and kind of stolen goods, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., reflects the defendant's personal character and behavior, family relation, frequency of crimes, and the like in the text.