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

The defendant is a person engaged in agriculture.

At around 10:00 on August 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) cut off the market value of E (11t cargo, base straw) owned by the victim D (the age of 40, the age of 11) who was parked in front of the C church located in the C church located in B by a method of towing 8 million won by a selective vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to six years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of the recommended sentences for the sentencing guidelines [decision of a sentence] thief group-general property: thief (determination of the recommended area and the scope of the recommended sentence] basic area (one month to eight months), which is no special person:

3. As to the Defendant’s decision of sentence, the facts charged in this case should be recognized.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not receive necessary documents, such as the F motor vehicle registration certificate, etc. stated in the police as the seller of the instant motor vehicle (the investigative record No. 36 pages), and the Defendant’s failure to present F’s personal information or contact information, and neglecting the said motor vehicle and disposing of the said motor vehicle after about six months from February 2013, which was the date of the sale, is also doubtful, it is doubtful whether the Defendant’s aforementioned change can be accepted as it is.

In addition, the defendant did not mislead the victim of his mistake.

Considering these circumstances, the defendant is sentenced to a higher punishment than a fine of 2 million won (a fine of 2 million won) that the prosecutor tried by the defendant, and the defendant shall be sentenced to the same punishment as the order within the recommended range in consideration of the fact that the victim has returned the instant vehicle.