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

On July 24, 2014, around 21:55 on July 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported the network by the Defendant at the Seongdong apartment parking lot located in Gosung-gun, Gosung-gun, Kim Sung-gun, Kim Sung-gun, and (b) C transferred approximately 40,00 of the market price of the victim (the victim) who is located in the Pobu, and (c) transferred approximately 28,000 won to the Defendant, carrying approximately 40,00 of the market price of the victim (the victim) ownership in the Pobu, and (d) thereafter, from that time to time the Defendant

9. From the date of June, 16, the victims took away property amounting to KRW 288,00,000, which is the total market price of the victims, three times, such as the list Nos. 1 to 3 attached hereto.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Second written examination of suspect interrogation of C by the prosecution;

1. Application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes of D, E, and F;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors for sentencing have been repeatedly taken into consideration for the defendant);

1. According to the sentencing guidelines for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act, the defendant is recommended to be sentenced to six months to twenty days from imprisonment (in the case of each crime at the time of sale, recommendation to the basic area of the crime of larceny (no special person), majority of the crimes, and restriction to the lower limit of the punishment). Notwithstanding the past record of punishment for the same crime, the defendant again committed the crime of this case shall be considered as the grounds for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects the amount of damage and the amount of damage are relatively small shall be considered as the reasons for sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Other grounds for sentencing, such as the age and family relationship of the defendant, shall be determined in the same manner as the order.