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

On April 15, 2019, from around 22:30 to 23:30, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft of Samsung 7 mobile phones judoo-si, Samsung judoo-si, Seoul, the victim’s market price on the floor was unknown in the electric car that moved from the opening station of the subway 40-ro 47 and the subway 1 to the twit-ro, 341 and 1-ray 341 of the Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul, to the tang River basin; (b) the victim’s market

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning B and C;

1. Application of statutes on search records and seizure records;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Based on the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, living environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence is determined as ordered.

Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant has a record of being punished by imprisonment with prison labor or a stay of execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime.

On June 20, 2018, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years of suspension of the execution of 6 months of imprisonment due to the crime of larceny and the embezzlement of stolen objects.

The defendant's mistake is recognized as favorable circumstances.

The method of the crime in this case brought the victim's humping mobile phone from the humping, and did not use active means to steal the mobile phone, but tried to directly use the mobile phone through the change of the nominal owner immediately after the crime was committed. It seems that it does not fall under the type of crime that steals the mobile phone against the viewers, etc. habitually.

The damaged goods were returned to the victim.

The criminal records of the defendant in the past are due to the mental disorder of the defendant (class III).