beta
Text
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 becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, who has no occupation or residence, entered a so set soup room with the intention of stealinging things at night, and drownd them by means of gathering dracker, etc. by inserting dracker, etc. in a frup, which is corrected by the manager, etc., and then stolen cash, etc. within this time.
On May 2015, at around 05:00, the Defendant entered a soup soup room located in Busan Sho-gu, Busan, in order to steals cash, etc., and stored the drat (30cm in length) as the drat in the drat box where the manager, etc. prepared to keep the drat (30cm in length) in advance, and cut off the 70,000 won and 3-4 of the drat in cash within the drat method, and cut off the drat in the drat box where the manager, etc. prepared to keep the drat.
In addition, the Defendant habitually intruded 18 times in total from around that time to May 12, 2016, as shown in the attached list of crimes, and stolen the property located in the relevant clothes at night, thereby thefting property amounting to KRW 6,837,00 in total.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Each legal statement of E, F and G;
1. Each statement;
1. Each protocol of seizure and each list of seizure;
1. Each investigation report (No. 50, 65, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 99), and a report of occurrence (No. 63 of the evidence list);
1. Habituality of the holding: The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they did not commit each of the crimes listed in the [Attachment 8] list of crimes in light of the following: the number of crimes, the number of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crimes were committed in a planned number of times.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, ① the victims’ statements are consistent and concrete, and thus credibility exists; ② the defendant has committed several thefts under the same type of water law; ③ the defendant’s statements are consistent.