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

1. On September 23, 201, at around 03:00 to 04:00 on September 23, 201, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the victim E, parked there, did not discover and correct any car that is approximately KRW 8 million in the market price owned by the victim E, which was parked there.

Accordingly, the Defendant and C, using the auxiliary heat that entered the vehicle into the vehicle, has driven the above vehicle, which includes one bank owned by the victim, two credit cards, two cash cards, and two cash cards, etc., and left the said vehicle, and left the vehicle, and left the said vehicle alone, and carried the said credit card and cash card.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property together with C.

2. On September 22, 2011, the Defendant discovered a Cheongwon apartment located in the Changdong-dong, Leecheon-si, and an I Poter cargo vehicle in which the windows owned by the victim H are opened, and bring three cash cards owned by the victim, one passbook, one security card, etc. inside the vehicle, and stolen the victim’s property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Each written statement E and C;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act that choose a punishment (the point of special larceny) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., circumstances favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (recognition of the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. have a record of being subject to the disposition to forward juvenile protection cases several times for the same kind of crime in the past, and has not been recovered from damage, and the defendant himself.