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

1. Around 05:00 on August 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed soup at the male inland waters room located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with one cellular phone with the market price equivalent to one million won in the ownership of the victim E, located on the side of another victim E.

2. On August 31, 2013, around 05:10 on August 31, 2013, the Defendant stolen a victim H-owned cash of KRW 200,000,000, which was on another computer, and a block of KRW 50,000,00,000,000,000, in a market price of KRW 150,000,00,000.

3. At around 05:00 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) cut off a cre in the “J” room located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) with one cellular phone of the amount equivalent to one million won at the market price of the ownership of another victim K, which is located adjacent to the other victim K.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to H, E, and K;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the ct v data screen pictures and records of seizure;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime. Article 329 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor);

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act is that the defendant does not repeat the nature of the same crime repeatedly within the short period, but it is against the nature of the crime first detained in the instant case, and it is deemed that the defendant will live well with the female student after the release.