A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 12, 2013, from around 12:00 to around 13:00 on the same day, the Defendant visited the Defendant to organize a new malket box in the D office located in the Gu Office located in the Gu Office in the Gu Office in the Gu Office in the Gu Office, and took a theft of the Defendant’s galgthot mobile phone equivalent to KRW 800,000 at the victim E-owned market price, which is the victim E-owned to be set up by connecting to the chargeer in the above office for filling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A E-document;

1. Report on occurrence of a theft;

1. Reports on internal investigation (the relative investigation, etc. of a victim);

1. Report on investigation (verification and investigation at the site of occurrence), and application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes on the site of occurrence;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the suspended execution, the Defendant denied the crime that there was no theft of the mobile phone, but the victim was in charge of the charge on the book of the office in the state of the cellphone. The victim was aware that the cellphone was separated from the book immediately after the loss and that the cellphone was lost, and that the victim was contained in the above office through CCTV. The president of the company demanded the return of the cell phone to the Defendant through the F, the president of the company, who was the third party of the Defendant. After that, the victim’s cell phone was discovered, the victim’s cell phone was returned to the victim through F, and the victim’s cell phone was returned to the victim through F, and the victim’s cell phone was returned to the victim on September 12:54, 2013.

The reason for sentencing (decision of the type) is that there is no person who commits the larceny (a person who is a special person) on the part of the general property for larceny (the scope of recommendations).