A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 19:54, in the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000, in cash custody of the victim’s cash custody of the Kababter, where his employees are in the “E” room of the victim’s D’s operation on the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, and the third floor, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu; and (b) the Defendant:

L. A. L. theft was committed.

2. On January 30, 2016, the Defendant collected 330,000 won in cash owned by the victim, who is an employee, in the victim G management “H” room of the victim G in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, and the second floor on January 30, 2016, from the victim G management “H” room of the victim G.

L. A. L. theft was committed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A copy of the G's statement and D's statement;

1. Application of the statutes governing field CCTV photographs and CCTV images;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for larceny of Article 2 of the Decision with heavier punishment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 60 (3) of the Juvenile Act, Article 60 of the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and punishment is that the defendant had been previously subject to a protective disposition under the Juvenile Act due to larceny several times, violated special matters to be observed in the juvenile reformatory, committed the instant crime while being under surveillance after temporary release from the juvenile reformatory, and did not recover the victims’ damage.

However, the defendant committed a crime in the investigative agency, and the court did not repeat the crime in the future, and the degree of damage caused by theft is significant.

It is difficult to see it.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances revealed in the trial process of this case, such as these various circumstances, the age of the defendant, sex, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime.