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

On June 8, 2015, around 09:00 on June 8, 2015, the Defendant, along with B, placed at the “Eum points” for the operation of the Victim D in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where the victim-owned market located in front of the entrance, 200,000 won in advance, carried in the Fcompact, which is owned by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property together with B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on the accused and B;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a photograph by cutting off on-site photographs and CCTV images;

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 (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for discretionary mitigation”);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for a suspended sentence”)

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.: The crime of this case is not less than that of the crime, it is difficult to find out that the crime of this case is against the defendant, it is difficult to receive a letter from the victim, and other favorable circumstances: there is no previous criminal record of the same kind, damage is recovered, and other factors for sentencing indicated in the arguments and records of this case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors for sentencing as ordered.