If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On May 30, 2013, at around 17:25, the Defendant discovered one of the following: (a) the victim E’s 'D gas station’ in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon; (b) caused the victim E to fall the floor before the cellum cream, and caused the victim’s cash 50,000 won 20,100 won check; (c) 1,370,000 won check; (d) 1,370,000 won check; and (d) 1, 1,370,000 won check; and (e) 1, 1, 1,000 won card of Samsung Credit Card; and (e) 1, 1,000 won card of community credit cooperatives C card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of statutes to each investigation report, such as on-site CCTV photographs, seizure lists, seized objects, field CCTV photographs, and on-site CCTV CDs;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that although the defendant discovered and found a wallet on the facts of crime, this only was put into the vehicle with the knowledge of the defendant's pro-Japanese wall as far as the previous vehicle was separated from the previous vehicle, the defendant did not have the intent of unlawful acquisition.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above macroscopic evidence, namely, the Defendant found the above wallet from the vehicle, and then found the above wallet to the vehicle by leaving the vehicle without regard to the other person, and the Defendant obtained the above wallet to the vehicle, and the Defendant called the above wall on the vehicle, leaving the surrounding area while making a telephone, and the Defendant left the site immediately after acquiring the wallet, and the Defendant did not attempt to find the owner of the above wall until being investigated by the police. In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant at the time of the instant case can be sufficiently recognized that there was the intention of unlawful acquisition.