On May 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the vicinity of subway 5 lines trading 5 lines located in the offline of Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul; and (b) at the victim D’s market price, which was installed in the bicycle cryp, cut off one set of KRW 200,000,000 at the victim D’s market price that was located in the bicycle cryp.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Voluntary accompanying report, receipt of goods, and bicycle photographs (in other words, when the defendant acknowledged the crime in the adjudication procedure, it came to this court, and again denied the crime and, if the F and E were to receive the bicycle from his father-gu on the day of the crime, they sent the bicycle to the defendant, which is a product damaged by him.

The argument is asserted.

However, the F and E applied by the Defendant were in conformity with this Court and stolen bicycles, which are damaged by the Defendant.

A statement is made, and there is credibility because the statement is consistent and specific in all important parts about the motive and background of theft, the method of crime and the role shared to each person, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

In determining that the facts charged are sufficiently convicted, etc.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 329 (Selection of Penalty Penalty)

1. 10,00 won of a fine to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse. (50,000 won per day)

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [i.e., the Defendant, even though recognizing the crime in the adjudication procedure, does not seem to have the light of reflectivity while denying the crime again in this court.

However, since Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration applies mutatis mutandis to cases where only the defendant requests a formal trial against a final judgment, this case cannot be sentenced to a sentence heavier than that of the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2550 delivered on January 15, 199, etc.). Accordingly, the same sentence as the final judgment is identical.