If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

At around 16:00 on April 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) opened a door to the object box of the victim E-mail; (b) opened a door to the cargo vehicle that was parked in the parking lot using the aforementioned stolen key; and (c) opened a door to the said cargo vehicle that was parked in the parking lot; (d) opened the victim’s cash 225,000, US$ 178, 178, 100, and 20,000,000,000,000.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen another's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal death;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with respect to detention in the workhouses is that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of the same repeated offense, and that the Defendant continues to repeat the theft crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant seems to have been refrained from committing theft since the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for more than two times with disabilities of Grade III intellectual disability, and the mother of the defendant also refrains from acting after the crime of this case, and shows the desire and will for future improvement.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant has an opportunity to refrain from committing the theft by himself after becoming adult may rather serve as an ultimate preventive measure for the larceny crime that is repeated by the defendant.

The decision is judged.

In full view of these circumstances, fines such as the order shall be determined only once.