A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five 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

1. On November 2, 2017, around 06:34, the Defendant stolen the victim’s market price with 45,000 km (25 km) equivalent to the 45,000 won at the victim’s market price owned by the Defendant, using any crepan in front of the “E” display stand for the victim’s D operation in the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

2. On November 2, 2017, around 07:00, the Defendant stolen with one navigational gram, and one navigational gram, equivalent to the sum of the market prices owned by the victim by the Defendant, using any crebs in front of the “H” store in the “H” store operated by the Defendant, Chungcheongnambuk-do, GunF, with no exception to commencing the said store’s business.

3. On November 7, 2017, around 20:03, the Defendant: (a) cut off a crepan in front of the “K” display stand operated by the Victim J, the Defendant, using the crepans in front of the “K” display stand; and (b) used the crepans of the victim’s market price, which is equivalent to KRW 122,00,000 in total, with four roll vinyl vinyls and a chemical powder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D, G and J;

1. Each protocol of seizure and each list of seizure;

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

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution [The defendant and his defense counsel committed each of the crimes in this case under the condition that the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to the increase of dementia in which his identity is unknown.

“To the effect that “” is asserted.

However, in full view of the Defendant’s circumstances, the method of crime, the investigation of the instant case, and the Defendant’s statement and attitude revealed in the process of trial, etc. at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to the dementia in detail at the time of each

It is difficult to readily conclude.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

1. Reasons for sentencing.