A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, while working as an employee in the restaurant for the operation of the victim D in Goyang-gu Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the Defendant, using the fact that the said victim was placed under the wall lower than the seat of the parallel restaurant entrance in the next place, committed a theft of cash stored in the safe, following the restaurant.

1. On April 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 00:40 on April 9, 2016, at night, entered the above restaurant by using the keys attached to the above restaurant; (b) taken cash of KRW 2,000, which the Defendant kept in custody of the said restaurant; and (c) continued entering the car page attached to the above restaurant and kept in custody of the said restaurant, and (d) carried cash of KRW 669,610, which was kept in the safe.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd a structure at night and stolen a total of 671,610 won.

2. On April 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance door door locked and stolen cash kept in the depository, which was held by the Raber on April 22:29, 2016; and (b) did not receive cash in the depository, but did not commit an attempted crime.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed the entrance and correction device at night and intruded a structure to steals another's property, but did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement of D;

1. Shot photographs of credit cooperatives;

1. Application of investigation reports (in relation to addition of the amount of damage) and sales table Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (a crime of larceny at night), Articles 342 and 331 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

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

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was not restored, and it is not good to commit a crime by intrusion upon the previous workplace.