Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

In March 2016, the Defendant: (a) had already acquired the ownership of the Defendant’s factory buildings and materials inside the factory building and materials located in the Defendant Company D, which was operated by the Defendant through compulsory auction process around January 20, 2015; (b) had been stolen by carrying 11 a total of 30,800,000 of the market price of the first floor laboratory in the above factory.

Summary of Evidence

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the defendant or F;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Submission of letters, etc. as an accusation), investigation report (Attachment to a notification of the Chuncheon District Court submitted by the person under investigation), investigation report (Submission of an appraisal report, etc.), investigation report (Submission of an appraisal report, etc.), investigation report (

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 and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

Since there was a false knowledge of the thief, there was no intention for larceny, and even after the victim acquired the ownership of a liquid tank, he/she continued to possess the tank and thus, he/she did not constitute larceny.

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, the Defendant did not confirm the specific details despite being notified of the content that a liquid tank is included in the subject matter in the compulsory auction process; the Defendant drafted an agreement with E on August 3, 2015, and managed the factory as employees of D Co., Ltd.

In full view of the fact that F did not occupy a factory any more thanks to the fact that J and G, an employee of the IF corporation, who had decided to purchase the key of a factory from E on March 2016, the Defendant was in possession of the victim.