A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Criminal facts

At around 04:00 on January 9, 2020, the Defendant stolen 50,000 won in the total of approximately 2,40,000 won of the market price of the 1 factoring in the stock market located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by using the gaps in which surveillance by the victim D was neglected, which was displayed at the victim's manager D, located in the stock market located in the livestock market located in the future. The Defendant stolen 50,00 won in the middle of the 1 factoring in the sanitary sealing, such as the one which was placed at approximately 60,00 won at the market price of the 1 factoring, and 2.40,00 won in the middle of the 30,000 won in the market price of the 1 factoring.

In addition, from February 13, 2019 to June 29, 2020, the Defendant stolen property worth approximately KRW 2,680,160 in total over 13 times, such as the list of crimes in the same way as the list of crimes in the same manner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. The application of the written statement of the D to the police internal investigation report (the analysis of CCTV images on the C Burial), the police internal investigation report (the CCTV images on June 29), the police investigation report (specific suspect), the police investigation report (additional confirmation of crimes - February 13, 2019).

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

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) is that the crime of this case is not good in light of the frequency of the crime, the amount of damage, etc., and that the defendant repeats the crime even though he had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, the criminal liability of the defendant is not weak.

However, the defendant's mistake and reflects, the defendant has made considerable efforts to recover damage, such as the fact that he has recovered a considerable part of the damage, and the defendant has made an agreement to recover the remaining damage with the victim, the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime after he was punished for larceny in 2009, and other favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, and behavior.