A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) knew on November 10, 2015, in front of the village hall located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) did not correct the cargo vehicle owned by the victim C; (c) opened a door of the said cargo vehicle; (d) brought the other keys of the ship, which was the victim’s possession in the front line of the said place; and (e) driven one out of the outer line, the market price of which is KRW 30 million, which was owned by the victim who was anchored at the front line of the relevant place, was approximately KRW 200 meters away from the said place.

2. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the roads near a wharf located in the Sincheon-gun, Sincheon-gun, Sincheon-gun, the Defendant: (b) placed a key in the E 1 ton vehicle’s seat at the location of the victim D; and (c) cut off the vehicle by driving the vehicle on the part of the victim while driving the vehicle in question.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A police statement of D;

1. - Application of field photographs legislation

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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 stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. When considering the fact that the defendant committed each of the larceny crimes of this case even though he/she had the record of being subject to multiple juvenile protective disposition due to larceny, etc., the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act is very heavy.

However, the Defendant’s confessions all of the crimes, and shows his attitude to reflect in depth, and the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, not by theft of the external engine and vehicles for profit, but by theft of the aforementioned external engine, etc. for the purpose of using them as a means to move to land from the island in which Kimun work was conducted, and the crime of this case was committed in the vicinity of the wharf after the crime.