Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person operating a lending company called “D”.

Around 01:00 on October 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle with the key in custody of the victim F, which is equivalent to KRW 7,000,000, the market price where the victim parked, on the ground that the victim was unable to repay the borrowed money by the expiration of the contract period on the road in front of the victim F’s residence in Seoul, the Defendant stolen it by using the key in custody of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a loan transaction contract, a copy of written confirmation, a copy of a vehicle delivery certificate, a copy of power of attorney, a certificate of automobile transfer;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The alleged defendant, while lending money to H, agreed to transfer the ownership of a private taxi to the defendant in the event that H is unable to pay the borrowed money by furnishing the private taxi as security, he delivered the money to the defendant, and the defendant arbitrarily takes the H's private taxi using a assistive key as the H failed to pay the borrowed money. In the case where H filed a complaint with the defendant due to interference with his business, the prosecutor dismissed the defendant on the ground that it constitutes a civil issue, and the defendant won the defendant on the ground that the defendant's act of taking the private taxi is difficult to deem that there was intention or illegality in relation to the defendant's act of taking the private taxi. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the defendant had intention to larceny, and there is no possibility to expect lawful acts, or the defendant is exempt from liability as it constitutes a mistake in law.

2. The theft under the Criminal Act is occupied by another person.