A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

"2012 Highest 2270"

1. On September 1, 2012, around 07:25, the Defendant discovered out that the victim E was set up a cell phone on the fourth floor of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, Yongsan-gu, with the victim E’s cellular phone in charge of head, and stolen the difference in which the victim was negligent in surveillance, with the victim’s single cell phone market value equivalent to 800,000 won, which is the other victim’s possession.

2. On September 7, 2012, around 04:18, the Defendant discovered that the victim F was set up a cell phone on the 5th floor of “D” as set forth in the above paragraph (1), and that the victim F was set up a cell phone on the side, and that the victim was stolen by having the gap in which D’s surveillance was neglected, equivalent to one million won at the market price of Aphone 4S cell phone owned by another victim.

around 05:00 on March 19, 2013, the Defendant discovered that the victim C left a cell phone with his head in Gangnam-gu Seoul Gabry Park, and brought about the victim by taking advantage of the gaps in which the surveillance was neglected.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen one cell phone 4 mobile phone in a amount equivalent to one million won at the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The E and C statements;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the following positive factors):

1. Community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Return: Reasons for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [the decision of punishment] General thief [the scope of recommendation] six months to one year and six months (basic area] [the scope of final sentence] as a result of the aggravation of multiple crimes (1/2 of the upper limit of crime No. 2nd 1/3 of the upper limit of crime No. 1/2nd 3): June-2 years [the decision of sentence] was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime even on January 7, 2013, and the sentencing criteria are as above.

However, the victims are two of the three mobile phones that thefted.