A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant of larceny at around 21:00 on September 3, 2016;

4. At an unknown point between 10:50 and 10, the victim-owned vehicle parked at the front of the Cham at a hambling-si, where the market price on the victim-owned vehicle is unknown, shall be discovered, open a door-to-faceless driver's seat and opened a door-to-face, and operated the vehicle by walking a starting-dong using auxiliary key stored in the said vehicle-to-face.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

2. The Defendant was driving the E-to-bed vehicle with the alcohol concentration of 0.285% under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license from the section of about 40km from the above temporary border, around September 15:50, 2016 at the above location, and around 40km-dong reservoir located in the 45km-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, Seoul, to the farm roads.

3. The Defendant violating the Immigration Control Act is a foreigner of Mongolian nationality.

A foreigner may sojourn in the Republic of Korea within the limits of his/her sojourn status and sojourn period.

The Defendant, around September 24, 2009, stayed in the Republic of Korea until September 15:50, 2016 despite the expiration of the period of stay in the Republic of Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. The circumstantial statement of a driver, the comprehensive vehicle tax content, the stolen vehicle tax data, the application form for computer of a stolen vehicle, the personal traffic and departure status, the vehicle driver's license register (the attachment of photographs at the time of entry of a suspect A), the investigation report (the attachment of photographs at the time of entry of a suspect), the defendant of the foreigner registration office is merely the operation of the instant vehicle on the condition that G, known to himself/herself, would leave the instant vehicle and, if necessary, use the instant vehicle, and the defendant did not steal the instant vehicle. However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, G is its own vehicle from the telephone call with the police.