Among them, the part concerning larceny is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Defendant.

A. As to larceny, in full view of the fact that the Defendant took the Defendant’s medical certificate by setting up it in the tebble, and that the victim and F did not return it even though the victim and F did not return it, and the intention of illegal acquisition is recognized, this part of the facts charged is found guilty.

B. As to the violence, according to the consistent statement of the victim, it is recognized that the defendant had the defendant interfered with the part of the victim's selling, so this part of the facts charged also is guilty.

(c)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. 1) On April 1, 2014, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on April 1, 2014, the Defendant: (b) around 19:00, at the D 1st floor c, in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (c) the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) suffered such a wound from the Defendant due to the Defendant’s conduct that he/she had to go to B.

“A medical certificate in the name of the victim” (hereinafter referred to as “the medical certificate in this case”) is shown, and “I do not know.”

Influence of alcohol is also influence.

N. N. N. L. L. S. L. S. S. S.

Does not be Blin

“At the same time, the said medical certificate was put into the State satis by setting up the said certificate.”

Accordingly, the defendant stolen a medical certificate on the market value of the victim's ownership.

2) The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant merely received a copy of the diagnosis from the injured party and read it, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed a theft, such as catching a medical certificate, or that the Defendant was intentional to larceny, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) However, according to the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the lower court and the first instance court: