Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 11, 2019, the Defendant, at a smoking place located in Seocheon-si B on September 7, 2019, 11:17, e.g., d (21) of the victim D (3) of this tobacco, and e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e.,

As a result, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement E in part of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV, such as damaged articles in the police statement protocol and field photographs, CCTV closure photographs, damaged photographics;

1. Relevant Article 360 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The summary of the argument on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant has a white paper with a white paper on the criminal facts, but there is no intention of unlawful acquisition since it was brought to return it to the victim.

In addition, no matter is found in the bank at the time.

2. Determination: (a) In light of the fact that the Defendant did not take specific measures to return to the victim for about 20 days from September 7, 2019 to September 26, 2019, the Defendant had an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition at the time, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not take any specific measures to return the cream bags to the police office for about 20 days, or reporting to the 1112.

The decision is judged.

2. A witness E: “At the time, the Defendant clicked him.”

The content was also found with the employees of the company, and the victim stated to the effect that at the time, the content was “the memory that was in the rogle at the time,” and that there was a criminal fact in the cromatic white.

In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement, it is also possible for the defendant to do so.