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

1. On July 2, 2015, at around 01:53, the Defendant stolen the victim B with a safe worth of KRW 100,000,00 of the market price where the victim, who was the victim in Pyeongtaek-si Building, intrudes into the PC room through smoking rooms, and was in possession of the victim, who was the victim in the PC.

2. On July 8, 2015, at around 01:15, the Defendant: (a) opened a corrective door at the “G cafeteria operated by the victim E” in Pyeongtaek-siF; (b) intruded into it; and (c) cut off the cash owned by the victim in the said G cafeteria; and (d) stolen it with KRW 100,000,000 in cash owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of B and E;

1. On-site reports on results of field identification;

1. Application of photographic materials and statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The first offense applicable to sentencing guidelines for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act [the scope of recommending punishment] 4 types of theft in general property [the scope of recommending punishment] 2 crimes (the scope of recommending punishment] in a case where a person has intruded into a place other than an indoor residential space (the special mitigation) 4 types of theft in general property (the scope of recommending punishment 4 types), 4 types of mitigation (the 8-1-6 months) (the 4th special mitigation) (the 4th special mitigation) in a mitigated area (the 4th special mitigation) (the 4th special mitigation) in a place other than an indoor residential space (the 8-2th sentence): The final sentencing scope due to multiple aggravations: the defendant who was sentenced in August-2 and March 3; the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case; the fact that the victim E agreed with the victim was punished for the same kind of error in favor of the defendant; the fact that the victim did not recover damage to the victim; and the fact that each crime is not disadvantageous to the defendant.