A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, 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

On October 24, 2012, around 14:34, 2012, the Defendant: (a) had the key to the victim’s right box located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government where the victim D was located; (b) opened the victim’s right and object with the said key; (c) held cash 1,347,000 won; (d) KRW 50,000 won merchandise coupons; and (e) was discovered and attempted by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of the same summary order);

1. Relevant provisions of criminal facts: Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation: The defendant alleged that the defendant's key to the defendant's assertion in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was mistaken to mistake the key of the victim as the principal, and did not steals the victim's wall. However, according to the victim's testimony, the defendant held the victim's key from the public bath to the victim's key and deducted cash after taking the victim's wall back from the compacts, and attached them to the employee's report. In light of the circumstances such as the defendant's clothes are located far away from the location of each object, the defendant's clothes are easily distinguishable from the victim's compacts, and the defendant committed the theft crime of several laws such as this case, and the defendant committed two times or more, it is reasonable to view that the defendant brought the victim's key to the victim's key to the crime of larceny. Thus, the above argument is not accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant committed the recent crimes of the same law, including the case in this case, three times or more, and seems not to reflect the depth of the crime, etc. However, considering the unfavorable circumstances, the fact that the previous crime is punished twice by a fine, the victim immediately does not want the punishment of the defendant after recovery of the wall, and the age, character and conduct, environment, and crime of the defendant.