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

1. On March 2, 2013, the Defendant attempted to larceny the victim C at the entrance parking lot located in Seopo-dong, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, and discovered DNA car, which is the victim C, in order to steal the property owned by another victim, in order to take away the property located in another victim’s possession of another victim, at the entrance parking lot located in Seopo-dong, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, and the Defendant did not commit an attempted crime.

2. On March 2, 2013, around 00:40, the Defendant: (a) discovered a victim E-owned car that was parked at the parking lot specified in paragraph (1); and (b) left the said car on the back door to the right side of the said car in order to steal property owned by another victim, which is another victim’s property due to a lack of surveillance over the surrounding area; (c) but did not commit an attempted crime due to a duplicating of the text.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Statement of each police statement of C and E;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 342 and 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act include: (a) the fact that the defendant was investigated by an investigative agency for the same kind of crime; and (b) the fact that the defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victims; (c) the defendant was led to an unfavorable sentencing cause against the defendant; (d) the defendant is in depth at the time of confession; and (e) the defendant committed an attempted crime; and (e)