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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 17:55 on July 30, 2019, the Defendant: (a) taken advantage of the gaps in the victim C’s management D, the victim’s surveillance neglected; and (b) took advantage of the gap in the victim’s surveillance negligence, the Defendant stolen the victim’s total market value of KRW 10,200 in the display stand, one non-Nenna City, one of which is the victim’s total sum of KRW 10,200, and two diesel units of “HARIBO”.

2. On July 31, 2019, the Defendant: (a) used a gap in the victim’s surveillance neglected; (b) caused the victim’s market price of 4,600 won, which is the victim’s possession in the display stand; and (c) stolen the victim.

3. On August 1, 2019, the Defendant, at around 17:30 on August 1, 2019, stolen lutinous rice dust, one glutinous rice dust, two cans by mobilization, using a gap in the victim’s surveillance neglected, and the market price equivalent to KRW 9,300, the victim’s market price located in the display stand.

4. On August 2, 2019, the Defendant stolen a “non-high-speed kimchi equivalent to KRW 8,700, the market price of the victim’s possession in the display stand, using the gaps in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected in the Mart, 2019.”

5. On August 6, 2019, the Defendant: (a) took advantage of the gaps in which the victim’s surveillance was neglected; (b) thereby cutting off the 10,100 won of the market price, which is the victim’s possession in the display stand; (c) one fryed bean; and (d) two fys of mobilization 2 cans.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen food of the sum of 42,900 won in the market value owned by the victim over five times in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by cutting off ctV images, which are active by the on-site guard;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. The case in which the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is based on the previous conviction and relation of the defendant, the amount of damage, and the mental health conditions of the defendant.