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

On July 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at E cafeteria located in Namwon-si, Namwon-si; (b) used a gap in the victim F’s management neglected; (c) used one amper, three amper, three stringers, three screeners, one screeners, and six stringers to the product seller G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the witness F and G in the third public trial record;

1. Seizure records;

1. Investigation report (to make telephone conversations between G and H) (to apply Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel who have no intent to commit a theft shall first do the wind that is a mixture of damaged articles and articles owned by the defendant (ju) E, and the damaged articles (ju) are owned by E;

I think that there is no intention to commit a theft since the disposition was taken.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the Defendant did not recognize the fact that the damaged goods were owned by the victim at the time of the disposition.

As such, the above argument cannot be accepted.

The Defendant made a statement at the police to the effect that “Isle-, ample-, and softs, once you know whether you are our goods or not” (Article 43 pages of the Investigation Records). The Defendant, even based on the Defendant’s own statement, took into account the fact that the damaged goods may be owned by others.

G intended to purchase all articles (including damaged articles) in the E cafeteria from the Defendant in the police and the court of law in the amount of KRW 1.5 million.

Accordingly, on July 4, 2015, all the goods in the E cafeteria was loaded on the truck, but the damage was caused by the Defendant’s excluding the damaged goods.