A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On October 27, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for larceny at the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court). On November 4, 2016, the judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2016.

[2] On October 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with food amounting to KRW 12,890,00 in total, including 2 kbbbbbb, 1,200 won in the market price; (b) 1,200 won in the market price; and (c) 12,890 won in cocckb, beverages amounting to KRW 500,00 in the market price, which were displayed at the food store located in the head office of a club located in the Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. On-site and photographs of damaged articles;

1. Previous convictions in the Supreme Court Decision: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision (2016 High Court Decision 2731, 2731), investigation report (Attachment of suspect trial proceedings), search of the Supreme Court B case (Seoul East District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2731) and the application of statutes;

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

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] - The effect that the sentencing guidelines are not applicable in relation to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (the decision of sentencing): The defendant's mistake is recognized; the defendant's mistake is recognized in relation to larceny and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; there is a need to consider equity in relation to the case where the defendant is adjudicated at the same time in relation to the concurrent crimes; the degree of damage is relatively minor; the degree of damage is relatively minor; the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim; the defendant has a history of having been punished for a fine for