A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 26, 2017, around 13:57, the Defendant: (a) stolen the Plaintiff’s “D” digital store located in the display stand in Jongno-gu Seoul, by taking advantage of the gaps in which employees E’s surveillance was neglected; (b) caused a theft of the Plaintiff’s market price equivalent to KRW 205,850, which was located in the display stand. On October 25, 2017, the Defendant: (c) around 14:17, the digital store located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul; (d) caused a theft of the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 149,00,00 in the market price owned by the Defendant, which was located in the display stand in Jongno-gu Seoul; and (d) caused a theft of the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 5,00,000, 300, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 30, 30, 4.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement prepared in G thief and a written statement prepared in E;

1. Each internal report (Securing and analyzingCCTV);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the Wearing, shouldering, transportation card photographs in possession, damaged goods photograph;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was the same criminal record and six times of punishment. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months for habitual larceny. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant went to the instant crime even though he was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the defendant's life is difficult to prove congenital immunodeficiency disorder, and the crime of this case seems to have been caused, and the amount of damage is not high, and it is agreed with the victim.