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

1. On July 3, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the C car center located in Pyeongtaek-si B; (b) discovered a copy of a plug card owned by the injured party D, which was displayed in a vehicle for the repair of the vehicle; and (c) deducted the plug card owned by the injured party.

2. On July 4, 2017, in order to commission a kind of non-motor vehicle at around 15:03, the Defendant: (a) passed through the king-dong, Jincheon-do; and (b) presented the nick card of the said victim to the female employee in the name of his/her place of business as the Defendant, and caused the said female employee to pay the toll of KRW 800,000 from that time until December 21:34, 201, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount by paying the toll of KRW 19,450,00 in total by the aforementioned stolen card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. A list of seizure records (voluntary submission), and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (related to the results of execution of a warrant of seizure, details of use of a load card);

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 329 of the choice of punishment (abstinance, choice of fines) and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (abstinence of fraud and choice of fines)

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order is that the lower court’s lower-down card was a card and thus, the crime of fraud is not established separately.

The argument is asserted.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence in the judgment, the fact that the Defendant was automatically charged a certain amount in the deposit account connected to the Hashes Card if the Hashes Card was automatically charged and the amount of filling is less than a certain amount, and the Defendant thefted as above.