Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

From October 4, 2016 to October 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) entered a password between Busan Shipping Daegu B 102 Dong 102, 3706; (b) opened a door to the victim’s residence; (c) intruded the victim’s residence; (d) 1 million won in cash on the large credit cooperative; and (e) 10 million won in the market price of the Ramer’s clothes, etc. at the large credit cooperative; (d) 10 million won in the market price of the Ramer’s clothes, etc.; and (e) 8 million won in the market price; and (e) 5 million won in the old Ramer’s 5 million won in the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Investigation report (investigation into an amount of damage and recovery of damaged articles);

1. Subparagraph 1 of seized evidence 1 (the intention of unlawful acquisition in larceny shall be the intention of infringing on ownership or other equivalent right, i.e., the intention of acquiring an object or the value of a substance, even though it is not required to have the economic interest on a permanent basis, even if it is intended to acquire only the value of the object;

In the case of using another person's property without the consent of the possessor, if the use of the property is so consumed to the extent that the economic value of the property itself is significant, or if the property is disposed of in another place other than the original one, or it is in possession of the property for a long time without the return thereof, the intention of infringing on the ownership or principal

In light of the purport of unlawful acquisition, the intent of unlawful acquisition may be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9570 Decided August 18, 201). The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Defendant merely borrowed money and valuables from the victim at once, and did not commit a theft.” The Defendant is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, and the victim knows that “the victim returned to the house of one week after leaving the house and caused the damage.”