Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 21, 2012, the Defendant, at around 21:20 on October 21:20, 2012, took drugs and alcohol together, such as anti-horropic agents before the preceding day, and stolen the Frefic cars with the market price equivalent to KRW 3,300,00,000, which was owned by the victim E, who was stopped in front of the D office located in Daegu Seo-gu, Seogu, with the weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by witnesses E in the third protocol of the trial;

1. A written application for data processing of a waterway, detailed data on stolen and stolen vehicles, and a report on collection of stolen vehicles;

1. On-site forest site:

1. On-site photographs and photographs (e.g., places of occurrence) of low frequency vehicles;

1. Each request for appraisal, each report on appraisal, and each report on appraisal;

1. Report on internal investigation (in the case related to the result of appraisal, attaching "on-site inspection"), internal investigation report (in the case related to A-related data attachment), internal investigation report (in the case of subject matter A), investigation report (in the case of subject matter A), investigation report (in the case of execution of a warrant of seizure), investigation report (in the case of execution of a warrant of seizure), investigation report (in the case of evaluation of the market price of damaged subject matter), investigation report (in the case of additional investigation, etc.

1. Determination as to the assertion by the patient, the patient's wrong inquiry, the medical expenses receipt defendant, and the defense counsel

1. The defendant and his defense counsel denied a crime to the effect that the defendant was engaged in a computer game at the home during the occurrence time of the instant case, but despite the defendant and his defense counsel's efforts to prove the identity of the criminal, the above Albaba did not prove the defendant despite the victim's efforts. Although the victim's statement about the identity of the criminal was a procedural issue, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's gene discovered inside the instant vehicle alone cannot be concluded to have stolen the instant vehicle due to the circumstance where the instant vehicle was operated in the large lane from several years to the date of the instant occurrence. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, even if the defendant cannot be seen to have stolen the instant vehicle.