Seized evidence No. 2 (Nusba) shall be confiscated.

On September 3, 2018, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol on the front of the “C cafeteria” restaurant located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. The “victim E” written indictment appears to be a clerical error.

Detectioning that the gold gings are suffering from the gold gings in the item of this item, raising awareness to steal the gold gings, setting away the surrounding areas of the victim, and taking an opportunity to peep them, and cutting off the gold gings (24K and 25 gings) equivalent to five million won at the market price of the victim, which is the victim's possession, by using the ging gings of human resources, and then cutting it to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each investigation report (the verification of CCTV images at the scene of occurrence / the tracking investigation into the suspect's moving route / photographing at the time of arrest of the suspect / the verification of the owner of gold gling);

1. Application of each protocol of seizure and each list of seizure to statutes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act (Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Act (Article 48(1)1 of the Public Prosecutor is also seeking forfeiture of evidence No. 1 of the same Act, but this is not a thing provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, and it does not

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] shall be the basic area (eight months to two years) of the theft of general property;

2. Circumstances disadvantageous to the decision of sentence: The defendant cutting and theft of the gold rings from the line against the victim who was locked on the course of the new wall time is highly dangerous in light of the method of crime and the form of act; the quality of the crime is not good (the recommended sentencing guidelines is more severe than the general larceny); the defendant has been punished four times due to the crime of larceny of the same kind, the crime of embezzlement of possession, and the crime of embezzlement of possession (one time of imprisonment, one time of suspension of execution, and two times of fine). The above circumstances are that the defendant recognized the crime and reflects it; and the defendant recovered the damaged articles.