2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person living together with the victim C from January 2015, who was living together with the victim C at the place of residence of the victim in Ulsan-gu D.

around 05:40 on March 16, 2015, the Defendant stated that “the victim’s vehicle fee (time to work) is changed” to the victim’s residence, and reported that the victim, who was in custody of ordinary cash, held a head of the sexual harassment and taken 10,000 won in the vehicle. The Defendant shall take one million won where the victim, in diving, crebs the toilet between the head of the U.S. and the head of the U.S., where the victim was in custody of ordinary cash.

In other words, they stolen them.

B. The court below held that the witness C’s statement, C’s statement in the prosecutor’s office and the police interrogation protocol, and C’s statement in accordance with the facts charged in the instant case, were stolen of cash of 1.1 million won (one hundred thousand won for each white bag, one hundred thousand won, one hundred thousand won, one hundred thousand won, one hundred thousand won, one hundred thousand won, and seventy copies for one thousand won) on the written statement prepared immediately after the theft report was filed.

However, on June 27, 2015, the prosecution stolen KRW 10,100,00 in total, including two bags with KRW 600,000,000, and KRW 400,000, and KRW 5,000,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000,00 in cremation.

On the same day, there was a change in the statement on stolen amount and the number of bags containing money, and on the same day, the prosecutor stated that the Defendant collected subsidies from the State for persons eligible for livelihood benefits that the Defendant was stolen to receive by the State every 4.90,000 won, but the court of the court below held that there was a continuous change in the statement, such as that, in the court of the court below, she provided a son with a 600,000 won, and 400,000 won, made a statement as her mother’s money, making it difficult to believe that

The decision was determined.

In addition, one defendant shall be held in the United States with which he/she has been in custody of his/her money when he/she reduces the rent.

The C's argument that the defendant was aware of the fact that he had money in his U.S. is nothing more than the conjection, and I am my own.