When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the work room of the victim C located on the second floor of the building B in Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (b) caused D, who is unaware of the fact that the victim was the victim’s clothes owned by another victim, left the office creshing the office creshing the victim’s clothes owned by him; and (c) caused D, who was not aware of the fact that the victim was the victim’s clothes owned by another victim, to steal the market price of the victim’s ownership (the reported price of KRW 1,200,000) with one red

2. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) cut off the victim’s influence 1.m. at the place above 1.m. on October 12, 2015; (b) at the market price owned by the victim, which was suffering from clothes in the same manner, (c) with one fluence fluence fluor of the victim’s market price (the victim’

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C, E, and D;

1. The statement made by C in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the prosecution against the defendant [the defendant is deemed to be frozen and frozen;

(1) the United States of the United States of the United States of the

The author argues that there was no intention to acquire illegal profits, and that there was no intention to acquire illegal profits.

In the case of using property of another person without the consent of the possessor without permission, if the property itself was consumed or used to the extent that the economic value of the property was considerably high, due to such use, or disposed in other place than the original one, or the property is occupied for the long time without the return, the intention of infringing on the ownership or principal right.

In light of the intention of illegal acquisition, however, it is minor that the consumption of value due to the use can be disregarded, and if the use is the same as the return immediately after the use, there is an intention to infringe on the ownership or principal right.

As such, there is no intent to obtain illegal enrichment.

It is reasonable to view that the person cannot be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do857 delivered on July 9, 199). It is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.