Defendant is sentenced to 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes specified in the attached list No. 1 of the 2016 Highest 793 case.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On October 24, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, and on March 17, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 17, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Sungsung Vocational Training Institution on August 5, 2015.

[2016 Highest 61]

1. On August 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) went through a restaurant with the trade name “G” operated by the victim F in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) and (c) intruded into a restaurant with a cafeteria, and went through a dial 4 mobile phone in which the market value of the victim, who was located on the accounting unit, was 50,000 won, was 50,000 won.

From that time until December 14, 2015, the Defendant stolen the victims’ property amounting to KRW 4,270,000 in total in the same manner as the list of crimes, such as the list of crimes in attached Form 1, from that time until December 14, 2015.

2. Embezzlements of deserted articles in possession;

A. On October 2015, the Defendant acquired one copy of the IBK Corporate Bank Card, KRB National Card, and one copy of the IBK National Card, NAC Card, and NAV Card, which was owned by the victim D, on the roads not exceeding the Yongsan River Station located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on the early October 2015.

B. On October 27, 2015, around 10:40 on October 27, 2015, the Defendant found, at the male toilet located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 200,000 won in cash, a new bank card, 1, BC card, 1, and one verification color tag containing one driver’s license.

(c)

On November 18, 2015, the Defendant, around November 12:25, 2015, found one copy of the Korean V Postal Card, which is owned by the Victim C in the subway located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu. Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The defendant did not take necessary procedures such as returning the goods acquired from the second paragraphs (a) through (c) to the victims, and did so.

Accordingly, the defendant is the victims.