A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, 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

On June 1, 2016, at around 18:17, the defendant's mother C (the suspension of indictment on the same day), parked the E-car owned by the defendant in front of the above entrance, and gather 377 string the victim F-owned market price in the construction site together with the above C, and carried 37 pumps in the above car.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field CCTV photographs and investigation reports;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act [The defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have any intent to commit larceny since the defendant brought damage to his/her name by obtaining permission from a field manager on-site manager.]

However, the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the aforementioned evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the victim F, the owner of the building, who was a thief, was the victim of the thief before the Defendant’s thief.

There was no on-site manager or security guard, and at the time there was no other on-site manager or security guard.

G, a victim’s wife, stated that he only received a certain person at the time, but did not have any talk, such as allowing him to take goods. The Defendant’s mother stated at the time of the police investigation that “at the time of the investigation into the police, it is not sufficient to say that “at the time of the investigation into the police,” and the Defendant stated that “at the time of the investigation into the police, it is not possible to find out the security guards who received permission after two weeks of the crime and being investigated into the police.”

However, since then, the defendant did not find it later, and the defendant appears to be security guards immediately after the scene is present at this court.