The Defendant, from the “D” operated by the victim C, who works as a leyer type of leyer, was found to have known the victim as a matter of compensation for traffic accidents, and had the victim claimed it as a matter of compensation for traffic accidents. However, the Defendant, using the fact that the Defendant was keeping cash in the ordinary book book book, and that the office key is not adjacent to the door, was stolen and stolen the cash.

On February 7, 2013, at around 05:00, the Defendant left the above “D” office, and laid the door up to the door, opened the door into the next office, opened up in the next office, opened up the door in the string of the strings, and opened up under the strings, and 3,210,700 won in cash, which is the victim’s possession.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd a structure at night and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s written statement;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason of Article 330 or more of the Criminal Act concerning the crime; and