A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On October 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) laid off and stolen an article equivalent to KRW 1,315,00,00 in total, E, etc. at the market price of KRW 590,00,00 from the warehouse of the Victim D Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was located in G, and (b) subsequently cut off; and (c) thereafter, from around that time to July 27, 2016, the Defendant stolen the total market price of KRW 199,240,938 in the same manner as written in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Investigation report (Investigation ofCCTV images);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each theft photograph and each theft victim's photograph;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Crimes No. 1, 2, and 3 applicable sentencing guidelines [the scope of recommending punishment] th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th to th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. Determination of sentence: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, career, home environment, motive and means of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances constituting the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings after committing the crime, as set forth in the text.

[Unfavorable circumstances] Although the Defendant was aware of the theft crime from D Co., Ltd., the Defendant continued to commit the larceny, and continued to be committed in H operated by the victim G, and committed the larceny from this framework, and committed the theft crime from this framework. The crime was poor; the frequency of the crime in this case and the amount of damage to victims is considerable; and the Defendant drafted the first interrogation protocol on August 18, 2016 at the time of preparing the first interrogation protocol.