Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On July 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00, the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Habro 77 Airport Railway Kim Jong-si Station: (b) around 16:0, the Defendant left shopping bags in front of the Victim’s mother, left the shopping bags in front of the Victim’s mother, and left the shopping bags in which the victim’s market price is equivalent to KRW 356,880, 356,880, the victim’s market price.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. In consideration of the fact that the reason for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was not recovered, and the fact that the defendant knew that the shopping bags in the judgment were garbage and brought about by the investigative agency, and that the shopping bags were reduced within the shopping bags, and that there was a consistent attitude to avoid liability, the defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak.

However, at the latest, the defendant is committing the crime of this case in this court, and there is no specific criminal punishment except that the defendant has been punished once a crime of this type, and the defendant has no other criminal records, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all the conditions of the sentencing specified in the records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered, taking into consideration the following factors.