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

On May 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 09:34, around 2014, at the “5-ro 115-o, Hancheon-ro 115-ro 20, Hancheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) provided financial transactions by the victim C (the age of 47 and women); (c) opened the above wall bed; and (d) stolen KRW 305,00 in cash the amount of cash charges on the part of the victim’s 2-ro 305,00 within the “5-ro 5-ro 20,005-ro 115-ro 20,000,000.” This is based on the victim’s statement that the victim C (the age of 47,000) left only 1,000 won out of the various 5-

However, according to CCTV images, 1,000 won is uncertain as the cash amount that the defendant stolen is 305,000 won as the victim's statement.

However, there is no disadvantage in exercising the defendant's right of defense due to the same factual relationship and the opportunity to present the amount of theft, and it is recognized that cash in the amount was stolen without any changes in the indictment.

B cut off and cut off this, which was stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. A criminal investigation report (or a counter investigation of reported persons);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Photographs of seized articles;

1. CCTV CDs (the defendant merely sent 50,00 won 50,000 won flives, which are flives off, to be protruding, and this is alleged to have no intention to larceny as an intangible act. However, according to CCTV images, it is clearly confirmed that the defendant opened a part of the lock and then leaves several blurgs at that place, and then the blurgs are taken out at that place. Therefore, the intention to steals can be sufficiently recognized) and the application of CCTV laws and regulations.

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.