Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On June 30, 2017, at around 04:20 around 04:20, the Defendant intruded into the “Dless telecom” parking lot located adjacent to the Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, with a bridge used to use the wall, into the “Eju-gun” parking lot, which is managed by the victim F., and on the same day, the Defendant maintained the direction of the hidden telecomer after the parking lot pole. At around 08:00 on the same day, the Defendant took up KRW 1790,000 in cash, which the Defendant kept in the safe, by making use of the stur in order to clean up the said damage.

We kept and stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. On-site photographs;

1. The account statement that Defendant H deposited in cash received from the Defendant

1. Photographs of seized articles;

1. Image images of CCTV points E;

1. CCTV photographs of moving routes before and after the crime of the victim;

1. Video-recording video CDs in Dless telecom or E main phone;

1. Image images recorded on June 17, 2017;

1. A copy of guest rooms;

1. Investigation report (investigation into intrusion routes, etc.) and application of field photographs-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant visited “Dless telecom” (hereinafter “the instant telecom”) on the date and time of the crime as indicated in the judgment, but there is no fact that the Defendant stolen money and valuables at the seat of the telecomer.

2. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, all of the Defendant’s act stated in the facts constituting the crime can be recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

A. On May 2017, the Defendant had worked as an employee to the degree of approximately one month at the instant telecom.

Therefore, the Defendant was well aware of the type of business, the time when the employees collect and settle cash, and the time when they clean up.

In addition, the defendant is around that time the mother of this case.