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

At around 23:50 on March 28, 2014, the Defendant was in front of the D gas station office operated by the Victim B, the victim C around 23:50.

The defendant had previously been aware that the victim had been able to keep the key to the security equipment of the second floor of the same building by using the key brought to the string of the second floor of the same building. The defendant cancelled the establishment of a small circuit of the gas station and intrudes into the office, using the key to the string of the second floor of the same building. The defendant held 723,000 won in the sum of 163,000 won per 23,000 won per 23,000 won per 1,000 won per 20,000 won per 20,000 won per 20,000 won per 163.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property by impairing the victim's structure at night.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. B written statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Return Criminal Procedure Act [Scope of Recommendation] : (a) the basic area (one to two years and six months) of the th category of theft in general property (one year or two years and six months) / [decision of sentence] / The defendant’s decision of sentence] reflects his/her wrongness; (b) the defendant has no record of committing the same kind of crime; (c) all thefts have been seized; and (d) the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, conditions of sentencing after committing the crime are considered; and (e) the punishment is determined as ordered.