If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. Around 07:00 on December 3, 2014, the Defendant d, at the victim D’s house, who was aware of the peace in the city of Won-si, drinking alcohol, and then dumped the victim’s physical check from the victim’s wall, and stolen the victim’s physical check (Account Number: E) from the victim’s wall.

2. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant, at around 07:30 on December 3, 2014, posted a personal identification card owned by D, which was stolen in the cash automatic machines managed by the Victim BGF Capitalnet set up at the store located in Won-si, and withdrawn KRW 90,000,000 in cash on three occasions, by entering the password known in D’s cash withdrawal depth, and then moving to the original financial center of the new bank located at KRW 51-17,00,000 on December 3, 2014, at around 08:00 on December 3, 2014, the Defendant withdrawn in cash over KRW 1,80,000,000 by inserting the said personal identification card and inputting the password on the cash automatic machines managed by the victim bank corporation established in that place.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the receiver;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant was a majority of larceny criminal records, committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, and the damage was not restored.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant's crime of this case differs from the previous crimes subject to punishment, and the crime of this case was close to the victim for a considerable period, and the victim's self-defense is seen to be A.