Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant currently operates golf service at a golf course, and around May 2013, the Defendant: (a) was a person who actually operated D Company, a fertilizer storage company; (b) around May 2014, the Defendant stolen approximately KRW 7,500,000 property of the Victim G (48 knpoland, 20 knpoland) in a manner that he/she owns approximately KRW 7,50,000 as a result of holding approximately 750 knpos to the obligee for his/her debt repayment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and I;

1. A written complaint and a transcript of recording submitted by the suspect A;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the issue of the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act bearing the costs of lawsuit, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, although the above fertilizers were kept in D (ju) before and were stored in D (ju), and were stored again by J to find out the escape, they do not constitute a fertilizer owned by the victim. Thus, the defendant did not constitute a theft by transferring a fertilizer owned by the victim under custody in D (ju) to H as stated in the facts charged of this case, as the same as indicated in the facts charged of this case.

First, with respect to the admissibility of evidence of the protocol prepared by the police officer against K, the above protocol of statement made by the police officer against K consented to the admissibility of evidence by the defendant and the defense counsel, and the authenticity was not acknowledged by K. In light of the fact that the defendant denied the crime of this case from the investigative agency, and the defendant did not seem to have any special circumstances in the situation where the K and the defendant make a different statement, but did not conduct a general questioning against K, even though they did not seem to have any special circumstances.