If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At around 17:00 on July 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) committed theft with one set of “D Industrial Complex” located in Chungcheong Hong-gun, Hong-gun; (b) one set of “CO2 adjoining CO2, market price, and chain block in an amount equivalent to KRW 600,000,000, which is the victim’s market price, the victim E, who carried on the business by leasing a part of the said industrial company, retired from his/her business; and (c) was the victim E, who was a victim of the said industrial company,

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Some police interrogation protocol of the accused (including E and F large part);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (investigation into attachment of photographs, and investigation into attachment of mobile phone text messages);

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant and the defense counsel had one CO2 adjoining machine, one dives tool, and one dives block (hereinafter "victim of this case") originally owned by E as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the defendant. However, the defendant and the defense counsel heard that E remains in the D industry instead of the benefits to be received from E, and that he was provided with a joint CO2 adjoining machine and CO2 with the benefits to be received from E, and they only stored the damaged goods of this case in order to secure F's claim against F, so that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.

2. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, E: (a) transferred the automobile repair business to F on or around March 2012; (b) granted F a license to use all the tools it used on condition that F would settle food expenses owed by F while transferring the automobile repair business to F; and (c) F was employed by the Defendant from around that time while engaging in the automobile repair business; (d) as such, E did not make any profit.