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

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 22, 2018, the Defendant, from around 05:30 on the front of the C club located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, arrived at the G University located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the purpose of which is to get the victim E to be a guest, and then cut off the Defendant’s mobile phone at the time of Samsung Ggal juth, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 1,000,000,000, which the victim was placed in the taxi seat at the taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. E statements;

1. G university generation place, CCTV photographs, damaged objects photographs, cellular phone photographs of a victim voluntarily submitted by the defendant, photographs of the victim's cell phone conversations, on-site photographs, and CCTV photographs of the victim voluntarily submitted by the defendant;

1. CCTV CDs (the defendant and defense counsel did not steals the victim's mobile phone);

The argument is asserted.

However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that the defendant stolen the victim's cell phone can be sufficiently recognized.

① According to the CCTV images at the time of the statement by the victim or the CCTV images, the victim seems to have discovered the fact that he/she has a mobile phone immediately after he/she gets into the taxi and to have changed immediately following the taxi leaving the taxi.

According to CCTV images installed near the lower point of the victimized person, the distance between the Defendant’s taxi and the injured person was about 10 meters, and the view was not even about 10 meters.

At the time, the view was 5:30 square meters around the new wall.

If this situation is seen, the defendant seems to have discovered that the victim was sufficiently followed.

② Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the victim paid taxi charges by means of the taxi card at the time, and the authorization of the card was not granted due to a communication disorder after the victim’s getting off the taxi, and the Defendant was not paid.