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

1. At around 06:00 on September 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) cut off the money 130,000 won in cash, the victim D, who was the owner, into a restaurant, and entered the restaurant in which the cream was owned by the victim D, who was the owner of the business, in a non-cater; and (b) stolen the money with the money 130,000 won in cash, which was owned by the victim.

2. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on October 20, 2016, on the second floor emergency stairs of the Suwon-si building E in Suwon-si; (b) on the part of the victim F, 400,000 won at the market price where the victim F was placed in a state where the victim F was not corrected, and stolen the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statement of damage from DNA preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as CCTV extraction photographs;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Crimes of Type 1 (Scope of Recommendation) and Type 2 (General Larceny) in the mitigation area (4-10 months) (special mitigation area) in general property;

(b) The scope of final sentences due to the aggravation of multiple offenses against Class 2 (Scope of Recommendation) and Class 1 (Larcenys, etc.), the basic area (4 to 8 months) (4 months) for the theft against general property: April to January 12;

2. Although there has been a history of criminal punishment several times for the same kind of crime in which the sentence was sentenced, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the defendant, the damage is relatively minor, the crime of paragraph 1 of the judgment constitutes a living-type crime, the bicycle of paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court was returned to the victim, and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant, and all sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of the case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.