When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On September 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) performed the work at the “D” restaurant located in the Gu in Ansan-si, and performed the work together; and (b) took advantage of the gaps where the victim E was under the influence of drinking together with the figures, the Defendant used the gap where the victim E was under the influence of drinking in the right side, and thereby stolen the Defendant with one page 1,40,000 won in the market price of the victim’s possession, and one f.M. MW x x 5 motor vehicle keys and one motor vehicle key located in the main machine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (D counter-investigation);

1. Credit card sales slips;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of seized articles;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the defendant had been aware that the defendant was the victim's fright G due to an drunk drinking and the frighter, etc. of the victim's frighter, so the defendant did not intend to obtain unlawful permission.

The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the above mentioned evidence and witness G’s partial statement, i.e., (i) “G” entered in the above restaurant with the Defendant in half-pats at the time of drinking alcohol; (ii) the Defendant and G did not suffer or suffered the spread; and (iii) the Defendant and G dice together with other male persons before going to the restaurant; (iv) dice in the above restaurant; (v) the Defendant and G drink again in the above restaurant; and (v) the Defendant and G dice again in the above restaurant; (v) the Defendant and the Defendant had been aware of the fact that G did not go to the point because the Defendant were accompanied by G for a few hours on the date of the occurrence of the instant case; and (iii) the Defendant with the above points as above. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24775, Sep. 26, 2013>