A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] On April 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Seoul Central District Court on April 10, 2015, and the Defendant was released on April 14, 2015 during the appellate trial and completed the execution of the sentence.

[2] On September 30, 2016, around 00:30, the Defendant discovered the train No. 2549, which was operated from Samsung Samsung Station 2 to the subway station as an outer air-line protection area, and discovered that the victim C was seated to her seat while under the influence of alcohol, and accessed it.

The Defendant thefted with one of J5 smartphones when the victim jumal gal ju, which is the market value of the victim, who was flicked by the victim while under the influence of alcohol, was flicked by the victim with a 60,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements concerning the accused in the prosecutor's office and the police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. A report on investigation (the details of seizure of seized articles);

1. Investigation report (verification of CCTVs against victims, etc.);

1. A report on investigation (related to the investigation ofCCTV analysis and the false statement of suspect);

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: A investigation report (as to the suspect A's criminal history), the result of the search by prisoners, criminal history and other inquiries, and criminal investigation reports (in addition to the previous judgment attached thereto), the defendant asserts that the defendant only attempted to bring the mobile phone located far from the train room to the main service personnel.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., other sons located in the guest room at the time, even according to the Defendant’s statement at the investigation agency, held that “the mobile phone” was “a son,” and ii) the Defendant was set up in the station of each set, and the victim was set up at the station of each set, and the victim did not have a cell phone due to the absence of a locking cell phone after the passage of the set.