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

On February 8, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened the victim D’s table cp within the Government-si B around 03:30 on February 8, 2018; (b) cut off the victim D’s table cp; and (c) stolen the victim’s table 80,000 won at the market price of the victim’s attention neglected.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements prepared by the police for D, E, and written statements prepared by the police for D, D, and E, each investigation report (related to suspect release and photographing of belongings, investigation of damaged articles, and CCTV investigation in front of toilets);

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 punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. The defendant asserts that there was no theft of the issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with a view to the issue of the provisional payment order.

In other words, the victim came to know of the following circumstances that the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the victim, while drinking the alcohol in the heading C of this case with the son, he dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium.

During the process of searching for the instant soft’s staff members and the instant soft, the Defendant requested that the person who dices alcohol together with the instant so that the person who dices alcohol would have been confirmed as having no other person of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant should undergo telephone. As such, the Defendant left the toilet, and the staff member left the toilet and confirmed the instant so, but did not discover the instant so.

Accordingly, the Defendant had discussed the Defendant’s person, etc. while putting the Defendant with “inducing doubt”. The Defendant, etc. had only the food goods attached to the instant marry, etc.