A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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

From around 10:00 to 17:00 on September 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) stolen the reduction of 5 spokes from the 5 spokes by using hand and spokes; (b) in the dry field located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant stolen the reduction of 13 spokes from the 5 spokes of the victim E and from the 13 spokes of the victim F to the 13 spokes of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the current status of damage;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 329 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Scope of recommending the sentencing guidelines for the reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act: Imprisonment with prison labor in April to August; the punishment for larceny in general property (no special person shall be imposed): six months; imprisonment with prison labor in six months; imprisonment with prison labor in one year; imprisonment with prison labor in two years; and imprisonment with prison labor in one year; and it is difficult to see the quality of the crime; and imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of the fact that the defendant made a reply that it is difficult for him/her to understand; and the victims do not repent of his/her wrong when she made a reply that he/she is unable to understand; imprisonment with prison labor; the victims shall be selected to the extent that they were naturally opened from the family members of the family at the place where he/she takes care of his/her her fry, and are not farmers who grow vocational sense and harvest, and the economic value of damaged goods are not significant; and imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of the fact that the defendant was punished only once before the instant fine was imposed and there is no punishment for the same kind of crime;