If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

On March 8, 2017, at the time of the Government around 19:30 on March 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) removed the victim’s D’s negligence of surveillance; and (b) removed the flag “halog omom’s car” in an amount equivalent to KRW 53,000 at the market price of the victim’s ownership, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the flag’s disease, which was contained in the other goods display stand by placing it in another place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of D and E;

1. A investigation report (C CCTV investigation), a site, and a CCTV-cap photograph;

1. Personal data replys on the details of the self-paid CCTV settlement CCTV photograph, suspect settlement card, and personal information replys in the name of the card;

1. Application of the investigation report (Analysiss of CCTVs, detection of damaged products, etc.) and the Acts and subordinate statutes that cut down the CCTV additionally;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Provisional Payment Order is that the defendant misleads the defendant, compensates the victim for the amount of damages, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, method and mode of committing a crime, and various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the circumstances before and after committing the crime, shall be determined as ordered.