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

The defendant is a person who has operated an entertainment drinking club "E" with the victim C in Gangnam-gu Seoul.

On October 2010, the Defendant, at the end of the pertinent entertainment drinking house, requested that the Defendant check the employees’ prepaid payment documents indicated in the attached Form No. F, jointly owned by the victim and the victim who was in custody of the F, with the victim who did not work in the workplace, and caused the theft of the said documents.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by C of a witness in the second protocol of trial;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on prosecution seizure records;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the Return of Victims;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that he/she had no intent to illegally obtain the employee’s prepaid payment documents of this case, the Defendant’s intent to use or dispose of another’s property as his/her own property by excluding the right holder and excluding the illegal acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny, and the intention to possess the economic benefits of another’s property permanently is not required. Even if the Defendant was deprived of the possession of another’s property for the purpose of temporary use, it cannot be deemed that the use of the property itself was consumed to the extent that the economic value of the property itself is considerably high, or that it is occupied for a considerable period of time, or abandons it at a place different from its original place, and thus, it cannot be deemed that he/she has no intention to obtain it. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012).