A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court on June 17, 2016, and the sentence became final and conclusive on June 25, 2016, and is currently under suspended sentence.

On November 4, 2016, around 05:47, the Defendant: (a) placed in the “E” office operated by the victim D, at Jeju Island, with a view to theft of property, and intruded into the office, by opening the exhauster and opening the gate that was not corrected; and (b) cut off five sets of agricultural medicine for the purpose of double distribution of KRW 2,594,000, the total market price of the victim’s ownership, on the truck loaded by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. On-the-spot report (CCTV verification);

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, reports on investigation (verification of the period of suspension of the execution of a suspect), and application of statutes in Part I of the judgment;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant did not have the intention of larceny, and took things under the victim’s implied consent or understanding.

2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendant’s total market price of agrochemicals brought by the Defendant exceeds KRW 2.5 million; (b) the Defendant was well aware that the Defendant was the victim’s cattle, and caused the Plaintiff to have a telephone call, or did not keep text messages; (c) the Defendant did not bring the Defendant to the victim without any prior consultation except the victim’s use of agrochemicals according to the victim’s business instruction; (d) the Defendant did not talk about the fact that the Defendant did not bring the Defendant to the victim even from November 6, 2016 when the Defendant reported the theft to the police to be identified as the suspect; and (e) the Defendant used the Defendant’s pesticide in his own dry field with the intent to look at the two trends.