Seized evidence 24 to 27, 125 to 128 shall be the name of the injured party.

On May 19, 2015, at around 19:30 to 20:00, the Defendant: (a) removed the theft prevention attitudes from the part of the Defendant, after having 119,800 won in total and 2 nitroz in the market price of the victim D in Busan-gu, Busan-do; (b) removed the theft prevention attitudes with 119,800 won in front of the market price of the victim, and then put them in the bank, and thereafter cut it back; and (c) from that time until March 19, 2016, posted clothes, etc. as indicated in the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crimes, which were first prepared by the Defendant after removing the theft prevention attitudes, and then put them in the bank, or displayed clothes in a cret of the victim’s surveillance negligence, and then cut off the clothes totaling the market price of 230,294,209 won in total throughout nine six times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, D, H, and I;

1. Each statement of the J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AH, AJ, AJ, AK, AK, AL, AM, AMF, AM, AP, AP, QR, and AS;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Other damaged articles and photographs of seized articles;

1. Investigation report (as to attachment, such as photograph of the scene of the crime) - Application of statutes, such as photograph of the scene of the crime;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 333(1) of the Return Criminal Procedure Act / [the scope of recommendations and sentences] / The increase based on the criteria for handling multiple crimes ( June -1 June) on the basis of Class 2 (general larceny) on each general property: June -2 year -9 (special sentencing person) and certain victims want to agree with the victim J and return only damaged articles; however, the above agreement does not constitute a special sentencing factor, considering the number of victims of the instant crime, the amount of damages, etc.

[Pronouncement Decision] The crime of this case is a total of 96 times from May 2015 to March 2016 by the Defendant.