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

On May 19, 2019, at around 22:48, the Defendant entered a restaurant through a window not corrected in the “D” cafeteria operated by the victim C in the official city B. On May 19, 2019, the Defendant: (a) went into the restaurant; (b) had one Samsung Electronic TV equivalent to one million won at the market price owned by the victim located in the restaurant hall; and (c) stolen it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of CCTV CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes to crime scene;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of recommendation [decision of types] according to the sentencing guidelines based on the reasons of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act 1 of the same Act; the theft of general property [Type 4] intrusion theft [special mitigation]] in cases of intrusion theft [special mitigation] in places other than indoor residential space, no penalty shall be imposed [the scope of recommendation area and recommendation area], special mitigation area; imprisonment from April to June;

2. Determination of the sentence of punishment as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the amount of damage inflicted by the determination of the sentence of punishment is not significant and the victim does not want punishment; (b) the criminal records having the same kind of criminal records but not exceeded the fine; and (c) the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation