A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 7, 2014, around 08:44, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the victim was divingd from the “Ecom” 6th floor of the victim D’s operation in Jeju-si; (b) intruded into the guidance room through an unauthorized entrance; and (c) stolen the victim’s cash owned by the victim, such as 2 million won in cash; (d) one landmark; (e) one motor vehicle key; and (e) one landmark; and (e) two handbags with cosmetics, etc., and 70,000 won in market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV photographs;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60 (3) of the Juvenile Act;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of probation and community service order

1. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was found to have weak ability to control one’s own act by determining whether or not the Defendant had the ability to reasonably distinguish between the malicious behavior of things and the time when the instant crime was committed, such as being judged to have an excessive behavioral disorder, such as intellectual disability and lack of caution.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was found to have been judged as having a 3rd degree of intellectual disability and lack of caution, but the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant stated that there was no impediment to school life or daily life (the investigation record 227 pages), etc., the foregoing assertion is rejected as it is difficult to view that at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant did not have a weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has been subject to juvenile protective disposition several times due to theft crimes, and the damage of this case has not been recovered.