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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On November 17, 2016, at around 15:52, the Defendant: (a) took up four times each of the aforementioned four times of thefts, which include three times of the amount of money equivalent to 59,000 won, owned by the victim D; (b) one car screen in the amount of KRW 59,000, KRW 59,000, KRW 59,000, KRW 59,000 owned by the victim E; (c) one female-owned seed (2.5km) owned by the victim, and three times of the amount of money equivalent to KRW 9,00,000, KRW 187,000, in front of the office of staff of the Maritime Affairs and Port Office located in the Incheon-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on internal investigation (a confirmation of CCCTV in the Human Rights Office), a report on internal investigation (a criminal investigation by a suspect through personal CCTV), a report on internal investigation (verification of damage) (a confirmation of damage by a person under his/her control), and a report on investigation (a confirmation of historical damage on which the person under

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order was made by a person who collected and sold the abolition and thought that at the time the military office contained books in the empty stuff, brought four of them, and there was no criminal intent of theft.

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence of the judgment, are, namely, (a) the door-to-door box was placed in front of the watchkeeping room in the human-military office building; (b) the above place was not a place where the human-military office’s waste bags or empty stuffs were discarded; (c) the door-to-door box was not opened; and (d) the invoice was attached, so it could be easily known that it was not a stuff that was discarded; and (c) the Defendant was abolished.