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

On October 1, 2018, at around 05:49, the Defendant embezzled the property that was possessed by the Defendant without following necessary procedures, such as returning it to the victim, even though the victim C acquired gallonian No81 at the market price of the victim owned by the victim, which was found to have been in dispute with male-gu, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, but was lost, at around 100,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (which is made on the fifth trial date);

1. C’s statement;

1. A CCTV data analysis statement;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing seized articles;

1. Relevant Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the damaged goods were returned to the victim, and the damaged goods were considerably damaged by the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s possession of the stolen goods does not seem to have had a conclusive intention to embezzlement. In addition, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances.