2. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant’s cell phone theft and theft.

On February 25, 2017, around 15:40, the Defendant asked the victim to prepare a document recognizing the non-defluence of the victim at Daejeon Dong-gu C and 2, Daejeon, Daejeon, and DKab, but the Defendant assaulted the victim's head only once on the ground that the victim refuses it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statements of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Evidence List 4) of photographs related to damage;

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Punishment to be suspended: A fine of one million won;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (one hundred thousand won per day converted);

1. Suspension of sentence: Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the circumstance in which the defendant, who was active and fluent teachers, was suspected of being out of prison between the victim and his spouse, and the victim and his spouse, the reason why the defendant did not immediately participate in the victim's improper speech and behavior and did not have any criminal punishment prior to the instant case, and the portion not guilty;

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft of a mobile phone using a mobile phone case consisting of a mobile phone, credit card 1, physical card 1, and cash 20,000 won (hereinafter “the mobile phone, etc.”) in the class of G special class in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and the victim E (34 years).

B. On the same day 08:10 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) removed and stolen a black stuff in an amount of approximately KRW 170,000 in the market price owned by the victim within the victim’s vehicle parked in the above school parking lot; and (b) damaged the connection section of the above black stuff.

2. Judgment on the assertion

A. There was no intention to obtain illegal information on cell phoness such as the Defendant and his defense counsel, and there was no intention to return it after completing evidence of the non-wheeledness between the victim through cell phoness and the Defendant’s spouse, and there was no intention to damage the property.