If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

피고인은 2013. 8. 12. 09:45경 광주 동구 광산동 13에 있는 문화전당역 3, 4번 승차권 발매기 앞에서, 피해자 C가 발권하면서 깜박 잊고 놓아 둔 현금 185,000원과 체크카드 2장, KTX 승차권1매(36,900원)가 들어 있는 지갑(100,000원)등 도합 321,900원 상당품을 가지고 가 이를 절취하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police with respect to C and written statements of D;

1. The application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of CCTV video data, the body of which is recorded by the victim while on the face of which is kept, and the application of CCTV video data photographs, the surface of which is recorded by the suspect;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant asserts that the crime of larceny is not established for the crime of embezzlement of stolen, apart from the fact that the defendant's possession of the stolen property is established for the crime of embezzlement of stolen with respect to the use of the stolen property that the defendant left the possession of the victim.

2. As to this point, even if the property was lost, if the possessor of the property knew of its location and can find it, the possession of the possessor shall not be lost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do38, Feb. 28, 1984). According to macroscopic evidence, C, the injured party, has loaded a subway ticket at the place where the crime was committed, up to 7 subways, and went through a subway, and immediately returned to the place where the crime was committed. As such, C, the injured party, as a victim, has taken up a taxi and returned to the place where the crime was committed, and immediately closed the fact that the wall was lost, and returned to the correct place where the wall was lost.