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

The defendant is a person who is a convenience store in C.

1. On July 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) within a convenience store located in C in C, a scambling-si, Scambling-si; (b) the Defendant: (c) discovered a handphone between the victims E with a scam in the same convenience store; (d) discovered a handphone on the table of the place; (c) attempted to steal it; and (d) concealed the handphone in the display box; and (e) did not scam the handphone to the victim who caused the scam, and then did not scam the handphone to the victim.

The theft was stolen in a false manner after the end of the year.

2. The Defendant of the assault: (a) around 12:41 on the same day as paragraph (1) and at the same place; and (b) whether the Victim E found the convenience store with F with the victim E, and whether the Defendant “the cell phone was not seen”

"I, for the reason that CCTV is required to change," "I, I have to see, I have to do anything, I have to do so, I have to see, I have to do so, and I have to interfere with the business of I have to do so.

"In doing so, I tried to see the face side of victim E five times by hand, and assaulted the left part to the entrance by cutting it up.

3. The Defendant of intimidation: (a) the victim F, who was in the same time, place, and together with the victim F, is “dwarf.”

"라고 향의를 한다는 이유로 " 씨발 년 아 너 거 장례식 장에서 왔제, 이따 저녁에 내가 찾아가겠다, 기다려 라 "라고 하며 오른손을 들어 때릴 듯 시늉하며 마치 어떤 위해를 가할 등 협박하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Police statements made to E and F;

1. The tear tear photograph produced by E;

1. A criminal investigation report (to be accompanied byCCTV video images and video CDs) (any article in possession of another person);

The issue of whether it is necessary to be determined in consideration of the intention of control as a subjective element, in addition to the scope of management as an objective element or the possibility of factual management, shall be determined in consideration of the intention of control as a subjective element, and ultimately, in light of the social common sense, depending on the form of the pertinent object and other specific circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3252 Decided July 10, 2008).