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

On June 18, 2017, at the convenience store operated by the victim D, the Defendant, at the Government-Si around 18:00 on June 18, 2017, stolen the victim's surveillance disorder with the victim's display stand, with one water price equivalent to 1,600 won in the market price of the victim's possession in other convenience store, and one scark tape equivalent to 2,800 won in the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (the suspect's scene of the crime - the visual bropic brophye);

1. Application of the video Acts and subordinate statutes (CCTV) to damaged motion picture pictures and convenience stores;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning a crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act (based on the choice of penalty penalty) is that the defendant was punished for the same crime, and that the defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the suspension period, and that he did not agree with the victim, etc. are disadvantageous circumstances.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized and depthed.

The damage is a small amount of 4,400 won.

The crime of this case is likely to have been committed under the circumstance that the ordinary judgment was not made due to depression, coercion proof, and alcohol respect, which was suffered by the defendant of ordinary level.

In addition, when considering various sentencing conditions, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of a fine seems to be too harsh and the sentence of a fine shall be determined like the order.