The defendant pays 950,000 won to the applicant for damages.

On July 4, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment by the Seoul Eastern District Court, and completed the execution of the above sentence in the Sungdong detention center on July 15, 2013.

(Criminal facts) On February 19, 2016, around 21:52, 2016, the Defendant cut off one so-called so-called ftener cell phone in the order of 60,000 won when the market price of the victim, which was on the part of the victim, was 9,50,000 won at the drinking house of "E" located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and the second floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Data from CCTV at a theft site;

1. Photographss showing the theft of a person who is the victim;

1. Previous convictions: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (each attachment to the suspect, of the judgment related to repeated crimes and personal identification/written output of the current status of confinement) shall be made;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Articles 25 (1), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Compensation Orders;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning

1. The defendant's assertion and defense counsel's assertion that the defendant did not steals his mobile phone for the following reasons:

The argument is asserted.

The defendant's book or mobile phone, which was held by the defendant in the "E" table, was owned by the defendant and opened on the table.

The Defendant was in possession of a large amount of checks and cash at the time, and there is no reason to steal the victim’s mobile phone.

If the defendant stolen the victim's mobile phone, he did not return to the victim after going from the "E".

When the Defendant returned to “E” and was doubtful as a larceny, the Defendant permitted the search of the Defendant’s body and personal belongings at F’s request.

However, the victim's cell phone has not been discovered, and the defendant and F are in the process.