A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. Defendant A, at around 00:10 on May 28, 2015, had a key in the Victim E-house, which the Defendant was lockeded by the Defendant, set up a victim’s house door and cut down, and then cut down the Victim’s house at the victim’s market price, which was located in the said place, at the victim’s possession, with a line equal to KRW 1,00,000,00,00 in the market price, which was located in the said place, and cut down, Defendant A, with a fishing room consisting of household items, such as a bucker, bucker, bucker, smell, scambling, pick, slick, etc., and seven fishing lines in the market price, and a fishing room consisting of fishing goods, such as a flick, g

2. around May 28, 2015, Defendant B: (a) knew of the fact that, as described in paragraph (1) of Bocheon-si, Bocheon-si, A was stolen, Defendant B left the Defendant’s F car with the view that the Defendant’s F car was an unclaimed fishing line of the market price of the victim E, including seven fishing lines, sludge, and drilling; (b) and (c) left the Defendant’s f car with the Defendant’s residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness E and A;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant B by the prosecution;

1. Protocols concerning the examination of suspects A by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police officer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the result of execution of a written request for the provision of data verifying the communications, and attaching photographs of real-time tracking location tracking;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 362(1) of the Act; and Article 362(2) of the Act; and Article 362(1) of the fine. [The Defendant B, as indicated in the facts of crime, transported the Defendant A’s animal. However, it is denied to the effect that he/she was unaware

The perception of stolens in the crime of stolens is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt that the stolens are ambiguous, and whether or not the stolens have been aware of the fact that it is the stolens can be recognized by taking into account the identity of the stolens, the nature of the stolens, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 195. 195.)