1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months;

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 30, 2017, at around 04:55, the Defendant accessed “C” clubs located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the back of the victim D (neep, 19 years of age), and humpedly hump the victim’s hump, and hump hly hump the victim’s hump, and hump humbly hly hump the victim’s hump and refused

2. At the same time and place as the above Paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim’s cell phone (i.e., the victim’s cellphone 7) holding the victim’s cell phone (i.e., the victim’s cellphone 7) located in the back part of the victim’s cell phone (i.e., the victim’s cell phone) with his arms spread at the same time and place as above paragraph 1.

3. The Defendant: (a) the victim’s friendship E, which was accompanied at the same time and place as the above paragraph (1) was stolen by the Defendant and took the Defendant’s hand phone, as set forth in paragraph (2); and (b) the victim caused the damage to the victim.

“At the time of hearing the language of the phrase “,” and assaulted the victim’s hair by making the victim clear.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each written statement D and E [the defendant and his defense counsel] asserts that the defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful benefits at the time of taking the victim's hand phone as stated in its holding.

In light of the facts and circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, namely, the defendant started to say that the victim's portable phone was a long time after the victim's victim's friendly E, and the defendant tried to return the victim's contact information after receiving the victim's contact information. However, although the defendant stated in this court that he was unable to memory the fact that he brought the victim's contact information, it is difficult to believe such a change is difficult, and the defendant is to return the victim's contact information, i.e., to the same purpose.