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

On November 6, 2016, around 14:42, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with a 70,000 won in cash, which is the victim’s possession, and a credit card, etc., owned by the victim E, while oiling in the D gas station located in Jung-si, Jung-si; (b) on November 6, 2016, the Defendant committed a theft with a 500,000 won face value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A victim's summary statement, investigation report (outstanding investigation, CCTV confirmation and search at the scene of occurrence), photographic analysis of CCTV image data at the scene of occurrence, and victim's photograph submitted by the victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

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

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

1. The judgment of the issue of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the issue of the provisional payment order is that the defendant and his defense counsel did not have any intention of illegal acquisition because the defendant had a wall owned by the victim for her reason that he would return it to the owner, and he did not know about the fact or will return it to the owner.

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by this Court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., the Defendant: (a) went to the State without making any effort to return to the State, such as having the State employees of the State station after having her walleted the victim; and (b) the Defendant went to the State with her wall without making any effort to return her wall; and (c) the Defendant deducted the identification card, credit card, etc. from the her wall.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the instant case was kept in custody and received contact from the police, the identification card and credit card was submitted to the police station; (b) however, the instant paper A and cash did not have been submitted; and (c) the Defendant stated in the investigative agency to the effect that “I would have been able to use the wall A and I would have been able to use the wall A because it was good to use the wall”, the Defendant is owned by the victim as stated in the facts charged.