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

On October 12:00 on October 12, 2012, the Defendant conspiredd to steal pro-Ba B, C, and various living items at Samsung Home Stacker's second floor store located in Samsung Home Stacker's 30-3, Changwon-si's window 30-3, and the Defendant and the Defendant and the Defendant and C used a gap in the surveillance of security personnel to use the security personnel's surveillance to put them into one where the market price of 4,400 won is 229,90,000 won in total of the market price owned by the victim, such as 1, 200,000 won in the list of crimes, and 2,00,000 won in advance.

As a result, the Defendant, together with the above B and C, stolen goods worth KRW 229,90,00 in total, which are the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning C and B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable consideration of the following reasons for sentencing) is not good in that the Defendant again commits the instant crime even though he/she had a record of having been punished by a fine due to larceny, etc.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment or suspended execution, the degree of damage is not much severe, and that the defendant is in depth against his confession, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and environment, the punishment shall be determined like the order.