The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not have any intention to commit the larceny.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

① In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment by changing the facts charged against the Defendant as stated in the facts charged as “the facts charged,” and this court permitted it, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court. ② According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four months on September 19, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 20, 2017. As such, the Defendant’s crime of larceny, etc. for which the Defendant’s crime of this case and the judgment became final and conclusive upon the confirmation of the above judgment, shall be sentenced to punishment for the lower court in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment] On September 19, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four months in the Gwangju District Court 2017No. 2818 thief, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 20th of the same month.

The defendant, around 04:04 on March 19, 2017, at the 101 entrance of the apartment house located in the Yaco-dong in Gwangjubuk-gu, Gwangju, he would have the victim C with the taxi expenses at the house.

As Defendant’s vehicle was set off, Defendant’s embezzlement was made by failing to take specific measures for return for five (5) days after he voluntarily brought the bank, which includes one set of LG mobile phones in the aggregate of the market prices of the victim’s possession, and one set of gallon jus in the gallon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police of D. D.