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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

around 14:49 on May 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) placed the victim C above the ATM flag in a new bank automation 1st floor located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 56 temnaro-ro, 85 temnae-ro, 10,000 won in cash owned by the victim; (b) one resident registration certificate; (c) one driver’s license; and (d) one national bank security card; and (c) stolen the victim’s temporary packaging.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Application of investigation reports (related to the verification of CCTVs at the scene of occurrence), investigation reports (related to the verification of luminous post offices), investigation reports (related to the verification of CCTVs outside the tetram), investigation reports (related to the verification of the objects obtained from post offices inside the tetram), investigation reports (related to the persons who collect the tetramb in front of the tetram);

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the custody of a workhouse (the defendant and his/her defense counsel included the victim's wall in a well-known box);

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, ① the Defendant brought the wall, and the Defendant’s failure to return the wall up to the present time, and ② the Defendant 1 put the wall up on the wall outside the tetrales.

However, D, a police officer in charge of the investigation of the instant case, confirmed CCTV outside the troke for the time when the Defendant brought the wall to the wall, but could not confirm the person around the wall.

(3) There is a reason to deny the Defendant’s theft solely on the ground that the police officer did not verify all CCTVs outside the troke;

In full view of the above facts, the above argument is without merit.

This case, including the fact that there is no criminal record against the defendant for the reason of sentencing and the fact that the damage has not been recovered.