A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 01:05, at the front of a restaurant with the trade name “E operated by the victim D” in Yangju-si; (b) removed the toilet window by hand; and (c) invaded into a restaurant with a structure, and stolen the cash worth of KRW 300,000,000 owned by the victim.

2. On April 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:30, at the front of the restaurant with the trade name “H” operated by the victim G located in the Triju F, the Defendant stolen the cash amounting to KRW 30,000,000 owned by the victim, by opening the entrance by inserting in the suck of the glass door and sucking it into the cafeteria which is a structure, by cutting it into the cafeteria; and (b) cutting it out.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. G statements;

1. Investigation report (on the spot CCTV analysis and track investigation of the suspect), investigation report (on the spot CCTV analysis and track investigation-2 of the suspect), investigation report (report on the results of request for electronic appraisal), investigation report (report on the results of request for electronic appraisal), and photographs attached to the suspect's address; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] the reason for sentencing under Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, where the mitigation area ( August to January 6) (limited to special mitigation] of types 4 (type 4) intrudes into a place other than indoor residential space (type 4) [the decision of sentencing] a crime of larceny under the same veterinary law for six months and six months, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence for each of the instant crimes again during the suspended sentence period, and thus, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant committed the instant crimes during the suspended sentence period, and did not recover damage.

However, the fact that the defendant is both aware of the facts of the crime, and if this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the suspended execution of the judgment on May 22, 2014 is invalidated, and the crime is committed.