A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 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

1. On September 20, 2015, the Defendant embezzled, at the male toilets of subway 2, subway 2 located in the Daedong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim C left on a stop line, the market value of which is the victim’s non-owned land located on a stop line, the Defendant embezzled the property that took one of S2 white Samsung Samsung Samsung mobile phones and left on possession.

2. On April 7, 2016, around 00:30 on April 7, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the victim F alcoholic beverage around E convenience stores located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and embezzled the property that took one of the 500,000 won of the victim’s market value, which is the victim’s possession on the table, posted on the table 9,00,000 won.

3. On May 20, 2016, around 00:58, the Defendant stolen the victim G’s market price of at least KRW 40,000,00, 300,000, which is one of the market price of the victim’s possession, set up in the table below the victim’s seat, and one of the test plastic bags containing a passport. The summary of the evidence was stolen.

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (the relative investigation of a victim with personal phones);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (victim C and F counterpart investigation);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (a point of embezzlement of items departing from each possession), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the 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. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant, without certain occupation, repeatedly committed each of the instant crimes while making soup and making soup.

Defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, the damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is relatively minor and the damage is recovered, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered.