beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Seized evidence 1, 2, or 3 shall be confiscated from the accused.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
"2016 Highest 379" case
1. The Defendant: (a) had intruded into a mobile phone store at night when there was no money; (b) had the intention to steal the mobile phone in his/her custody; and (c) had the front path of the operation of the victim DD located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around January 23, 2016; (d) had the front glass of the said mobile phone agency; (b) had the luxed news block, which was prepared in advance, sealed the glass of the said mobile phone agency; and (c) had intruded into the cell phone agency with a strong glass with the victim’s market value of at least 30,000 won (10,000 won per unit); and (d) had the cell phone amounting to at least 80,000 won per unit (20,000 won per unit) with the victim’s property stored in the display site; and (d) has stolen the victim’s property.
Accordingly, the defendant, at night, stolen the victim's property by damaging the glass of the building and impairing the structure.
2. The Defendant: (a) around 05:08 on January 27, 2016, at the frontway of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, discovered the victim F, leading quibin, and followed by discovering the victim F; and (b) carried the quibin with the wheels.
Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the damaged items of 250,000 won, such as a boo-gu with a face value equivalent to KRW 20,000,000,000, the market price of which is KRW 10,000,000, Party A, cash KRW 50,000, one transportation card, one resident registration certificate, and five thousand,000,000,000,000.
The Defendant, from April 2015 to December 19, 2015, served as the head of G while working for G from April 2015 to December 19, 2015, and worked as an employee from “Ising shop located under the ground of “Seoul Gangnam-gu, Seoul” in which he actually oversees the operation of G, and was in charge of identifying and ordering the inventory of, and managing the settlement price.
3. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant violated a structure by using the gap in which the business was completed and no one remains.