A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 12, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in Suwon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2019.

On June 4, 2018, at around 03:25, the Defendant, along with B and C, opened a door of bareboat exchange with a franchisium operated by the victim E in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and C reported the network outside the above shop, and the Defendant and B opened a door of branchisium exchange with a franchisium and a franchisium prepared in advance, thereby leaving 1.5 million won in cash owned by the victim.

As a result, the defendant stolen the victim's property together with B and C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. A copy of the CCTV image analysis extracted from the F;

1. A copy of the internal report (CCTV image data analysis);

1. Previous convictions in the Supreme Court ruling: The output of the case search screen of the Supreme Court, the judgment, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (a final judgment

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Handling concurrent crimes and statutory mitigation thereof: the latter part of Article 37, Articles 39 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Taking into account all the circumstances, including the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment at the time of the instant crime, equity in cases where a judgment was rendered simultaneously with special larceny as stated in the first head of the crime that became final and conclusive and the age of the Defendant, even though the method of punishment for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was not appropriate and was not performed