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

On September 24, 2016, around 14:01, the Defendant stolen the victim’s door-to-door B, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 201, with a tension of at least KRW 50,000,000, and a door-to-door stack with a door-to-door stack of at least KRW 1,00,00, located adjacent to the front door of the victim C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report by a witness C with some of the defendants' statutory statements (in 7 pages of evidence records), criminal acts, the receipt of CCTV photographs (in tts 1), during the time of the crime;

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

1. At the time of the instant case, the gist of the Defendant’s claim on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186(1) main text of the Criminal Procedure Act was as follows: (a) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s friendship D visited the Defendant’s house; (b) at the time of finding that one of the victim’s finite, which was packed in a vinyl paper, was placed in front of the Defendant’s house; and (c) the remainder, which was removed from the Defendant’s house, was placed in front

After licking, the Defendant opened the said vinyl paper and confirmed that it is not one’s own property, and visited the victim’s house to return it to the victim. Since the victim was absent, it was impossible to return it, and it was not the victim’s intention to steal or keep it.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, it can be recognized that the defendant has carried the victim's goods with the intention of illegal acquisition, knowing that the defendant's selective transfer was made in the future of the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

① On September 24, 2014, in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, on September 24, 2014, 13:19, two (2) door-to door-to door-to-door, Defendant, and one (1) door-to-door, in which the addressee was the victim (in each door-to-door).