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

On April 13, 2019, at around 23:43, the Defendant, on the road located in Gwangju Northern-gu B, acquired cash of KRW 1,000,000 in cash, which was contained in the victim C(24 years of age) A, thereby leaving the possession of the victim, by taking out the amount of KRW 1,00,000 in cash that was left the possession of the victim.

As above, without taking necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, he/she has embezzled his/her idea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and D;

1. Photographs related to the case;

1. Explanation map of each photograph;

1. Two copies of screen pictures and videos CDs at the time of occurrence of the case;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel in the investigation report (the surrounding CCTV confirmation and investigation)

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant does not spaw off the wall that the victim saves at the time and place specified in the facts of the crime in the judgment.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, she was placed on a wall that the victim satisfe, and carried cash inside the wall, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted on a different premise.

① According to CCTV images taken up the place where the instant crime was committed and witness D’s statement, the Defendant parked his vehicle at the place where the victim was lost, and thereafter, the Defendant: (a) went to the vehicle after sending the passenger on board the vehicle, and then returned to the vehicle after sending the passenger on board the vehicle, and she was on board the vehicle again; and (b) up to 2-3 minutes after boarding the vehicle, it is recognized that the Defendant went to the studio building at the troke.

② The Defendant stated to the effect that he was unable to bring about a “dy field sy field” at the bottom of one’s own vehicle parked in the police investigation, and that the said dry field sy field syke field sykes in the prosecutor’s investigation.