A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the “E-SeJ store” located in Gwangju-gu, Dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, operated by the Victim C, the Defendant had one book worth equivalent to KRW 7,700 in the market price of the victim’s possession displayed in the book store by taking advantage of the gaps of monitoring by its employees.

In addition, from October 14, 2016 to October 17:30, 2016, the Defendant stolen 278 amounting to KRW 2,965,90 of the market price over 86 times, as stated in the list of offenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of C’s written statements to police investigation reports by Acts and subordinate statutes related to photographs of damaged articles;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense. Article 329 (Selection of Punishment of Imprisonment)

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act - The range of final recommendations based on sentencing guidelines: The sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing recorded in the records, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the background of the instant crime.

Unfavorable circumstances: The duration of the crime is long, the frequency of the crime, and the number of books stolen depending on the same type of fine is considerably high. Circumstances favorable to the criminal records of the same kind of fine: both the theft books have been returned to the victim. There is a mental retardation disorder for the defendant. The defendant is against the crime of this case.