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

On July 31, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment with labor for a special intimidation by the District Court for the Defendant on June 7, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 7, 2017.

At around 14:11 on July 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) reported the victim’s mobile phone operator who was placed on the restaurant table in the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; and (b) took three credit cards, such as a new card, and a cash 1,000 won at the victim’s market price, which includes three credit cards, such as a new card, and one cash 1,000 won, stolen the victim’s property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol of seizure, photographs of seized articles and protocol of statement;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, reporting on the results of the investigation (the fact that a separate judgment has become final and conclusive) and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Act for the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are as follows: (a) the defendant recognized the criminal facts of this case and reflects his mistake; (b) the victim's injured goods have been returned; (c) the defendant is the aged 70 years old; (d) the economic situation as a recipient of basic living security seems to have not been designated by the judicial branch; and (e) the fact that the judgment is to be judged simultaneously with a special intimidation that became final and conclusive, and the fact that equity should be considered to be favorable to the defendant

However, the crime of this case where the defendant stolens the cellular phone, etc. owned by the victim by using the gap in the victim's locking place, is not less than that of the crime in light of the contents and methods of the crime, the crime of this case has been punished several times due to the crime of this kind, the balance of general criminal punishment in the same and similar cases, and other arguments of this case.