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

around 08:35 September 2, 2016, the Defendant, “C” operator, and the victim D (25 ) operator, who is not aware of each other. The Defendant discovered 7 mobilephones in the order of the victim’s possession, which are worth 750,000 won in the market value of Samsung 1, which is owned by the victim, set up on the locker floor in order to avoid tobacco in front of the F cafeteria located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, and brought to the victim after having discovered 7 mobilephones.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, G and H;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the screen of the telephone list among mobile phone theft site photographs and absences;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The victim’s Handphone was trying to bring the victim’s Hand to the police station or the post office, and the victim did not have the intention to take the theft intentionally or unlawfully.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, ① the Handphone (hereinafter “Handphone”) in the victim’s judgment, was placed in front of the restaurant in order to distinguish the stairs connected with the entrance of the restaurant where the injured person was eating and the delivery of the surrounding areas, and the victim was able to smoke at a place where the Handphone was set off along with the day, but the Defendant was able to smoke at the place where the Handphone was set off. However, the Defendant used the Handphone in the surrounding area without any question as to whether the Handphone was the Handphone or the Handphone manager in the above restaurant while driving the Handphone, and the Defendant and the above restaurant did not pass. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20348, Feb. 2, 2008>