When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On June 12, 2016, from around 17:00 to around 09:00 the following day, the Defendant stolen the Defendant from two parts of the tree rooms cultivated by the victim D in the front garden in Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, according to approximately 10 Kg (market price omitted).

Summary of Evidence

1. Recording of statements made by witnesses D;

1. A reply to factual inquiries (Tol-Tol-bel-bel-bel-bel-bel-bel-bel)

1. In the investigation report (on-site and CCTV investigation), the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no theft of the room at the time. However, according to the CCTV images taken at the time of the crime, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, the defendant and his defense counsel: (a) according to the CCTV images taken by the defendant as of June 12, 201, as follows: (b) the number of men who have taken a part on the left side of the room entered a dry field where the trees are debrised, and the number of men who have taken up about 10 minutes of the room is string off, and there is a red flusing string; (c) the victim who directly confirmed CCTV images after the crime was committed, stated that the defendant, a fluse resident, who was the fluse resident where the male in the image was clearly inside the existing space; and (c) the defendant was hospitalized on the right bridge as of June 12,

However, according to the factual inquiry inquiry letter (Tol University Slick Hospital), the defendant was found to have taken advantage of his part in the emergency room of the above hospital from June 12, 2016 to 03:29 to 04:14, and discharged the part on the left side after taking advantage of the fact that the defendant had taken care of his part in the emergency room of the above hospital from June 12, 2016, and there was no proof of hospitalization as alleged in the above. Furthermore, even if I implemented part of the above, the defendant appears to have taken advantage of his part of the CCTV, as in the opinion of the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed a theft of the part. Thus, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

[Application of Acts and subordinate statutes]

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The order of provisional payment;