If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

At around 21:00 on May 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) while drinking alcoholic beverages together with alcoholic beverages in A located in Ansan-si, the Defendant used one of Samsung Ggal juscop 3 smartphones equivalent to KRW 900,00,000, the market price of the victim’s ownership, which was located on the side of the Plaintiff, was located on his table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of damaged photographs, on-site photographs, and cell phone photographs of the suspect;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant caused the victim's mobile phone to mistake the victim's mobile phone as his/her own mobile phone, and thus there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

① The cell phone of the victim is flick-type flick-type cases in Myanmar, and the victim's cell phone covers the cell phone screen at ordinary times.

On the other hand, the mobile phone of the defendant is exposed to the cell phone screen at all times in the military blue-type case.

Therefore, it seems that the mobile phone misunderstanding and bringing the mobile phone is often the sense that the outer shape and the hand are limited.

② The Defendant brought not only the victim’s mobile phone in a restaurant but also brought two mobile phones or two cell phones of the Defendant and the victim.

③ Defendant Happing (Defendant and F) became a victim (victim and G) who was seated on the side of a restaurant and became a small vision, and Defendant Happing (Defendant and F) became a restaurant with one another.

④ The crime of this case was committed.