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

On July 25, 2017, at around 08:48, the Defendant cut off, using the gap in which the victim C (the victim 62 years of age) laid on the way and under the influence of alcohol, the victim’s market price was equivalent to 200,000,000,000 won of 14km and 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won of 2.5,000,000,000,000 won of 3,00,000,000,000 won in cash.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property equivalent to the total amount of 3.1 million won in the market.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CDs and respective internal reports, investigation reports, and inquiries about details of transactions;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime three times, does not seem to have any possibility of criticism and the risk of recidivism.

In light of the circumstances that are not agreed with the victim, it is true that there is a need for more strict punishment against the defendant.

However, there are relatively little damage to property due to the instant crime, and most of the damage that was seized by an investigative agency appears to have been temporarily returned to the victim and the damage was recovered is favorable to the defendant.

The punishment shall be determined like the order by selecting a fine by actively taking into account such favorable circumstances.