On February 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sold home appliances owned by C and offered money to use; (b) around the residence of the father, father, and the injured party E of the D apartment 102 and 903, Cheongju-gu, Hoju-si; (c) identified the sale price of home appliances in the house; and (d) found the sale price of home appliances to sell the home appliances in the house to C; (b) by posting the phone to C’s “F”; and (c) subsequently, the Defendant sold them by telephone to the said “F”; and (d) subsequently, the employees of F enter the said residence and then sold them to the said “F” in the aggregate of KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000 won at the victim’s market price owned by the said employee; and (e) sold to the said 300,000,000,000 won at the open price.

Accordingly, the Defendant, together with C, stolen 2 TV sets of 2.7 million won at the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning C and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as “ favorable circumstances in the reason for sentencing”) is that the defendant has been subject to punishment several times for the same kind of crime, under unfavorable circumstances, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the defendant reflects his mistake, under favorable circumstances, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into comprehensive account the motive, means and result of the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, occupation, character and conduct, family relation, etc.