Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Criminal facts

On October 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 11:48, 2016, included the victim C (n, 40 years of age) and the victim C (n, 5,960 won in the market price; (b) the victim’s management crepit was displayed at the same place; (c) a new rotobbbing in an amount equivalent to KRW 3,980 in the market price; (d) a frotobing in an amount equivalent to KRW 6,980 in the market price; (d) a frotobing in an amount equivalent to KRW 6,980 in the market price; (e) a frotobing in an amount equivalent to KRW 6,980 in the market price; (e) a frobing in an amount equivalent to KRW 950,00 in the market price; (e) a frotobing in an amount equivalent to KRW 80,980 in the market price; (f) a reasonable market price equivalent to KRW 98080.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (for recovery of damaged articles and unexploited articles);

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. The Defendant, guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, asserts to the effect that he was aware of the fact that he was guilty of having committed an act of suppressing around September 2016 and had an object to be forgotten for calculation in the judgment of the court, and that he did not have any intention to larceny.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the above Mart is divided into a calculation unit and an exit unit, and the defendant used the Mart once every time it reaches the E hospital.

was stated.

However, in this case, the defendant contained a significant weight of up to KRW 70,000 and a large quantity of foodstuffs in a straw, which is not the cost of calculation, and the defendant was found to have been exposed to the above straw staff in the vicinity.