Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 7, 2019, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Defendant was arrested by the Defendant as a flagrant offender on the 733th floor of the Daejeon District Police Station and the first floor of the Daejeon District Police Station, Daejeon District Police Station, and attempted to enter the criminal and office, but was removed; (b) the Defendant was removed from the wall of the 1st floor entrance, and thereby, damaged the goods used by public offices by putting the banner amounting to KRW 700,000,000 at the market price posted on the wall of the 1st floor entrance.

2. On July 23, 2019, at around 11:55, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim D’s market value on the consignment in the Seo-gu Seoul Welfare Center, Seo-gu, Daejeon: (b) was stolen with a stress room in a size equivalent to KRW 30,000,000 in the market value where the victim D’s market value, which was on the consignment in the C Welfare Center, was located in the Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu; (c) one earphone; and (d) one Dogra in a size equivalent to KRW 200,000 in cash.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of E and D;

1. A criminal investigation report (in relation to field photographs), a criminal investigation report (in relation toCCTV images);

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of damage to public goods), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and selection of a fine, respectively, for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act alleged that the defendant and his defense counsel had a state of mental disorder by taking the mental and therapeutic medicine over at the time of committing the larceny. However, according to the evidence above, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had a state of mental disorder by distinguishing things or lacking decision-making ability, since the defendant's damage was caused by normal walking along the entrance door at the time. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant repeats the same kind of crime, but the defendant is given a mental treatment.