If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. At around 17:10 on February 19, 2020, the Defendant: (a) at the “C” store on the first floor of the department store B department store B, the Defendant: (b) in a manner that the Defendant prepared four books, such as three books of “Yeng-ro”, three books of “Yeng-ro”, and one book of “Seng-ro,” the total market price managed by the victim D, which had been displayed in a book, using the gap where the surrounding surveillance was neglected; and (c) was stolen by leaving the above book.

2. After committing the crime described in paragraph (1), the Defendant: (a) moved to the sixth floor of the same department store; and (b) committed a theft in the manner that the victim F, who had been displayed on a large scale, by taking advantage of the gaps around the store, destroyed the market price of KRW 199,00 by the victim F, who had been displayed on a large scale, by taking one click bag in the market price of KRW 19,00.

3. After committing the crime described in paragraph (2), the Defendant moved to “G” stores on the same floor following the commission of the crime, and then stolen one set of 5,000 won in the market price managed by the victim H, who had been displayed above the store by taking advantage of the gaps in surveillance around the store, by means of leaving the store in advance and leaving the store out.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the investigation of damaged objects of the F, D, H and I written statements (on-site CCTV confirmation and witness search);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime of the same kind.

However, it seems that the value of the stolen object by the defendant is not so significant, and that the object that the defendant does not need to distinguish is also considered to have been stolen, and thus, it has resulted in a contingent case under the influence of alcohol, and the damaged object is all.