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.

The Defendant was in the middle of February 2016, around the commercial building in Busan Jin-gu B apartment in Busan, the Defendant knew of his knowledge.

The victim D, who he stolen from C, acquired the stolen goods from the said C in seven times from around that time to February 3, 2017, by being aware that one, 18 k-7 n't 2,00,000 won or more of the market price of the victim D, is a stolen goods, including one, 18k-7 n't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of each victim;

1. An investigation report (to attach details of accounts of national bank A of a suspect and reflective documents, etc.);

1. Investigation report (Attachment, such as a copy of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect of the principal offender C under detention) - The details of the tax imposed on precious metal (for each victim), transfer of the principal offender C (written opinion, etc.), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each protocol of interrogation of the police suspect to C;

1. Relevant Article 362 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The instant crime on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes was committed by the Defendant through nine times from February 2, 2016 to February 2, 2017, and the crime of acquiring stolen goods was committed by the Defendant C through nine times. Such a crime of acquiring stolen goods is a bad punishment in consideration of the fact that there is a need for strict punishment since the Defendant urged the instant thief to commit the crime and obstructed the victims from recovering from damage.

However, the sentencing conditions in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, family relation, motive and circumstance before and after the crime, etc. are determined by considering the following factors.