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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the logistics warehouse of the Victim D Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., located in Gwangju-si, the Defendant stolen the Defendant, holding ten 10 mons with a 10,500 won mons and a 50,000 mons with a total market value of KRW 50,000.

2. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed theft with four mongs in total amounting to KRW 20,000, the market price owned by the Victim Co., Ltd. in a warehouse as described in paragraph (1) around May 20, 2015.

3. On May 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) from the warehouse set forth in paragraph (1) around May 2, 2015, lives worth KRW 15,000 of the market price owned by the Victim Co., Ltd., the Defendant was lives of KRW 1,500, 15,600 of the market price; (b) Tropia or 1,600 of the market price, and 15,600 of the market price.

1 Gambling, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 18,00,00, 18,000, 20,000, and 4 Jambling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. The difference in the quantity of the monmons shipped out;

1.5.18. Sales of Monmons;

5.20. Details of sale of Gamons;

5.22. Details of sales of the monmons;

1. It is a Sora, well-beingd Sychodo, Tropia, Ccalca, lita, lita

1. A criminal investigation report (compicingCCTV images);

1. CCTV inside a distribution warehouse of D-type materials (5.18.5.18.), CCTV inside a distribution warehouse of D-type materials (5.20.5.20), CCTV inside a distribution warehouse of D-type materials (5.22.) / The defendant and his defense counsel denies the intention of larceny and the intention of unlawful acquisition by asserting that the goods exceed the pre-sale list due to occupational negligence only have been placed more than the pre-sale list.

However, in light of the evidence in the judgment, in particular, the intention of larceny and the intention of unlawful acquisition may be recognized in light of the E's investigation agency and court's statements made by E's employees of the victim company who have consistently and specifically stated the circumstances in which the person who committed the larceny was identified as the defendant, and thus, the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, respectively;