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

The Defendant, on February 26, 2017, at the 'D' store of the victim C' in the Government-Si of Gyeonggi-si, 11:15, on February 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) caused confusion of the victim in the manner of asking for goods as if he/she would purchase a mobile phone; and (b) demanded the display of the displayed goods; and (c) used the gap to use the gap to use the 836,000 won of the market value of Samsung Galle-ju, which is equivalent to KRW 7,50,000 of the market value of Samsung Gallon-ju, which was displayed on the 550,00,00 won of the market value, was stolen with one cell phone of Samsung Gallon A-520 (test color) mobile phone.

around 12:25 on February 22, 2017, the Defendant cut off the 4 smartphone in the gallon of the city of 920,000 won in the gallon of 7 S7 in the city of gallon of the victim G owned by the Defendant at around 12:25, 2017, by inserting one gallon of 4 smartphone in the gallon of the city of 80,000 won.

On February 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) cut off a cell phone sales store operated by the victim I of H 102 at around 14:12 on February 20, 2017, the Defendant: (b) committed a theft with one cellphone in the amount of KRW 890,00,000, the market price of the victim-owned ELV20,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the respective laws and regulations of C, G, and I

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 329 (Selection of Punishment of Imprisonment);

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is a repeated crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant agreed with the victim C, and the victim C returned the damaged items seized to the victim C, but the damage caused by the instant case was not completely recovered, and the damage caused by the instant case was not completely recovered. In addition, the conditions of all the sentencing as shown in the arguments, including the Defendant’s power, occupation, motive, and circumstances after the crime,