A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 23:00 on April 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) in a sobrying room of Franchising in Changwon-si E, Changwon-si; (b) in a galloning room of an amount equivalent to 750,000 won owned by the victim C, the Defendant, from that time, stolen the victim’s property by taking off one S5 mobile phone, cash 20,000 won; (c) one transportation card equivalent to 10,000 won owned by the victim C; (d) one gallon for Gyeongnam-si; (e) one gallon for Gyeongnam-si; and (e) one gallon’s resident registration certificate; and (e) thereafter, (e) by taking off the victim’s property.

6. From 03:36 up to 15. 03:00, the victims’ property owned by the victims was stolen or attempted to steals ten times in total, as stated in the list of offenses committed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to G;

1. Each statement of C, D, H, I, J, and K;

1. A report on occurrence, a report on results of field identification, an investigation report (verification of a stolen merchandise coupon user), and an investigation report (or a relative investigation into the victim K);

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 329 (Apology, Selection of Imprisonment), 342, 329 (Aptitude of thief and Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, and Articles 330 (Aptitude of thief) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection;

1. In light of the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case over 10 times in a short period of time, the total amount of stolen goods, and the victims are unable to pay any damage, etc., the criminal liability of the defendant is not weak.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects his criminal act, some victims seem to have recovered from the damage through the temporary return by the investigative agency, the defendant has no record of the same crime, and only one fine has the record of punishment.