On December 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for larceny, etc. on one year and six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2017.

On December 31, 2016, the Defendant, at the “P” office operated by the Victim O (56) located N in Thai City on December 31, 2016, stolen three copies of the right to KRW 10,000,000, which were entered in a safe where the aboveO was not corrected by taking advantage of the gaps in a locking place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of theO;

1. Ctv course photographs, etc.;

1. Previous records: Application of statutes to the output of the screen of each judgment and inquiry of the case;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act on the Handling of Concurrent Crimes, the prosecutor of the non-guilty part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act brought a public prosecution on the charge that the amount of money stolen, as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the Defendant, is not KRW 30,00,000, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 30,000,000,000.

However, according to the records, the victim stated that the victim did not consider cash in the treasury and did not know of the correct amount, and that the victim had been 30,000 Won Won Won Won Won Won Won, and that the victim had been 30,000 Won Won Won Won Won Won. Such abstract statement was proved to the extent that there was a reasonable doubt that the defendant stolen money exceeding 30,00 won as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant at the time.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the court pronounced guilty of larceny in the judgment in relation to such a crime, the judgment of innocence is not separately pronounced.

The defendant with the reason for sentencing is the crime of this case.