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

The Defendant is a person who has been in charge of the display, calculation, etc. of goods in D operated by the victim C on the first floor of the building located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from September 15, 2015 to July 24, 2017.

On July 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) fabricated the sales data to make the difference between the actual sales and the sales recorded in the scriptive machine by not inputting the details of purchasing cash goods from customers in the scriptive machine; (b) inputting false information as if having returned the cash sales entered in the scriptive machine; and (c) stolen them by holding the difference of the actual sales and the sales recorded in the scriptive machine equivalent to KRW 95,510, the difference between the actual sales and the sales recorded in the scriptive machine; and (d) subsequently, from that time until July 24, 2017, the Defendant stolen them with KRW 389,740, a total of eight times, the victim’s possession, as shown in the list of crimes, from that time to July 24, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol of suspect interrogation of the police against the accused (including parts of the E and F)

1. Statement made by the police with respect to C and F;

1. Investigative reports (recording CD images, screen pictures of suspect carers, and screen pictures) related to the submission of data on the details of embezzlement, investigation reports (related to the closure of screen pictures) and investigation reports (organization of crimes logs);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CCTV-cap photographs (D), data on the details of theft of sales proceeds, data on the sales of the calculating spams, and application of the CCTV images to the closure of the CCTV screen;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 329 of the choice of punishment (a inclusive, the prosecutor was indicted as a substantive concurrent crime, but in light of the method and period of the crime, etc., it is reasonable to view that the defendant repeats the same act against the same victim under the continuous criminal intent within a certain period. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the same as a single crime.

(Selection of Fines)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant, for the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, is in the same kind.