A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 9, 2018, the Defendant: (a) indicated the victim D’s indictment in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) around 16:00 on April 9, 2018, but G is merely an employee of E E, and the victim is corrected ex officio.

The victims D and F, which were displayed in E Eart, seem to be victims as victims of fishery products in Eart, as victims of fishery products in Eart.

소유의 시가 40,000원 상당의 주꾸미 1 봉지, 시가 9,000원 상당의 청포도 1 봉지, 시가 12,000원 상당 탈취제 2개 및 시가 4,700원 상당 꽈리 고추 1 봉지, 합계 65,700원 상당의 물건을 가지고 나와 절취하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. G statements;

1. A thief report, report on the occurrence of theft (CCTV video image analysis), and report on internal investigation (specific to the person under suspicion);

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing)

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to six years;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment for the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the scope of the punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] mitigated area of the second type (the general larceny) [the person subject to special sentencing] mitigated area of the punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] mitigated area of the punishment [the scope of the punishment] four months to ten months.

3. The fact that the Defendant committed the same offense as the instant case, even though having a number of larceny records, is disadvantageous to the Defendant, etc.; however, the fact that the Defendant recognized all the facts charged of the instant case and expressed his intention of reflectivity against the mistake; that the Defendant was deemed to have committed an contingent crime in a very poor state of health; and that there are some parts to be taken into account in the motive as it appears to be favorable to the Defendant.

The sentencing criteria shall be based on all other circumstances provided for in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.