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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 29, 2012, between 10:0-12:00 on October 29, 2012, the Defendant, at the end of the E farm located in E farm located in Sistitu City D, stolen the gap in the management of the victim C by inserting one sheet of pine trees equivalent to KRW 1,300,000, the market price of his own possession, by inserting it into the Fpoter vehicle operated by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Some police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Each police statement concerning G and C;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Presentation of the price of pine trees;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the place of crime and photographing of seized articles;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and Article 329 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

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

1. Article 333 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for return;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is no intention of larceny since they take a finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finites from H company staff.

In full view of the above evidence, G, who is an employee of H company at the present site, made a statement to the purport that G, who is an employee of the H company, purchased pine trees from the main owner in the investigative agency and this court, made a statement to the effect that he would bring about pine trees and asked questions about whether it would be recovered, and that prior to this case, the Defendant did not buy pine trees including pine trees from C, who is the main owner of the said pine trees before this case, and then did not buy the said pine trees at the present site. In full view of these circumstances, it appears that the Defendant was aware that there was another main owner of the said pine trees at the time of this case, and that it was divided due to the combination of pine trees owned by H company at the time of this case. In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been aware that there was another main owner of the said pine trees without permission.