A. A thief 1) On August 27, 2016, at around 20:20 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) turned out one cell phone at the market price of 80,000 won in the Nong Credit Card No. 1, No. 1, No. 300,000, and one cell phone at the white gallon equivalent to the market price of 400,000,000 won; (b) around 21:13 to 21:45 on the same day, the Defendant released KRW 98, the Domp. Dog Dog-si, Nonghyup-si, Nonghyup-si, an automated machine No. 300,300,000 won in cash and 7:30,000,000 won in the name of the victim, which was stolen from the Dog-si.

B. The Defendant, in violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business, illegally discovered the passwords of the Victim’s Cze Card, and used 70,000 won in cash over 7 occasions, such as the No. 31,00 won, and 10,000 won check 33,00 won in front of the victim’s check, as in the above 1).

2. Determination

A. The Defendant did not have stolen the victim’s wallets and mobile phone from the police to the court of law, and the Defendant did not withdraw the said money against the victim’s will because the victim did not receive the necessary money from the Defendant, and the Defendant did not withdraw the said money because the thief card was cut off and notified of the victim’s password.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the evidence alone submitted by the Prosecutor was proven without any reasonable doubt.

and there is no other evidence to prove this.

1) In the initial police statement, the victim is a trade name called “D” by transferring alcohol from the backline of “F” on the day of the instant case to a place after drinking alcohol.