around 15:00 on March 16, 2013, the Defendant went into the “D restaurant” operated by the victim C during the Ansan-si-si-si-si-si-si, and went into the entrance that was not opened by the victim, and then brought about the 40,000 won of cash owned by the victim, 10,000 won of cashier’s checks, 10,000 won of cashier’s checks, 10,000 won of national bank check, 1, 1,000 won of bank check card, and 50,000 won of market price in Korea bank check card.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the structure managed by the victim and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. From among concurrent offenders, the Defendant, on September 17, 2008, received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000,000,000, which was sentenced to a fine under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that “the Defendant intruded into a restaurant and attempted larceny” in the Suwon District Court’s Sungnam Branch branch, and on June 9, 2010, he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the period of eight months, for the crime that “the Defendant invadedd the restaurant on five occasions and stolen the wall or cash in the restaurant.” On November 23, 2012, the Defendant abused the restaurant in the Suwon District Court’s Gyeyang Branch Branch branch, and stolen the wall.

‘A summary order of KRW 2 million for criminal facts is issued, but it is not good to commit the instant crime again with the same method and content.

This seems to have not been agreed with the victim or recovered from damage, and the fact that the defendant was arrested and investigated by the police after being investigated by the police becomes unknown at the end of his absence due to the absence of telephone from the beginning of the trial of this case.