If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant, who was Morocco born, was naturalizationed as Korean on 2008.

On August 2, 2017, the Defendant stolen Samsung Gallon, which had been laid on the victim E (43 Dop) Dop, at the cafeteria of the Young-dong Highway D Stallon D Stallon located in S7, around S7, 17:28 on August 2, 2017, the Defendant stolen it by having his around 800,000 won of the market value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. On-site photographs and CCTV analysis photographs;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of seized articles;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The defendant asserts that the judgment on the claim of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order only brought to find out the owner of smartphones and did not intend to commit theft.

Since intention, which is a subjective constituent element, is an internal intention, it is bound to be judged on the basis of external behavior.

According to the records, the defendant brought his own smartphones on the table of a resting restaurant at his own discretion to put them into the bit of a vehicle in which he had driven by the driver, and then brought them to the bit of his residence. Since the defendant's denial is Korean, it would be possible to ask his denial about how to deal with his smartphones, but such measures would not be taken, and the defendant could report the loss of his smartphones at the information office in the resting place.

It appears that the Defendant did not report it to the police box, etc. immediately after having arrived at his house (in particular, he did not go to the police box, etc. even though he knew that the password was unable to contact the victim with the smartphone, and the Defendant was driven by the Defendant.