As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, a fine of KRW 100,00,000 shall be punished by imprisonment for the crime No. 2 of the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On September 17, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for larceny at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) on September 25, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 25, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

1. On August 19, 2013, around 18:30, the victim C, a victim C, a second-class underground department store of Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, 916 Hyundai Department Store C, prepared a breab in the display stand, put a breab amounting to 4,000 won at the market price in the display stand in a temporary room, and then cut off it by placing it in a temporary room;

2. On November 11, 2013, around 12:35, 2013, the victim E, who is the manager of the above task, discovered that the victim E, at the front of the above task, installed the “Deduction” event, using the gaps in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected, and opened the cash storage box with the machine in possession of the Defendant, and cut off KRW 10,000 in cash in that box.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. C’s statement;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments, etc.);

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of Article 1 at the time of marketing and the theft between the crimes in which judgment becomes final and conclusive);

1. The defense counsel regarding the defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the charge of the crime of Article 1 of the judgment was arrested as a flagrant offender on August 19, 2013, which is the day of the crime, and the investigation was completed by the police in fact, and even if no further investigation was conducted by the prosecution after September 16, 2013, the prosecution was instituted on September 17, 2013, deprived of the benefits to be tried together with the crime of the previous conviction sentenced on September 17, 2013. This asserts to the purport that this part of the prosecution is unlawful because it constitutes abuse of the right of prosecution.

However, the prosecutor's arbitrary exercise of prosecutor's power to prosecute the defendant's substantial disadvantage.