Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 8, 2016, around 18:26, the Defendant, at the same time as Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, destroyed by having one bank consisting of a sound equipment charging machine in the total market value of KRW 1.50,000,00,000, and one wire microphones, etc. in front of the security room of the entrance of the Seoul, Nowon-gu Seoul, Seoul, Nowon-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the victim C ( South and the age of 27) performing this D performance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocols of examination of witnesses of this court as to C;

1. C’s statement;

1. Investigation report (the return of seized articles and the amount of damage);

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph seized articles;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. Although the alleged defendant had one room as stated in the facts charged, the defendant was aware that the victim was abandoned, and thus there was no intention to steal the defendant.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, C, was placed in front of the guard room at the time of putting the bags and leaflets, etc., but it was not a place where garbage was thrown away, C, which was stored in the box, and the goods inside the box were not repaired because they were not fixed money, and the Defendant did not confirm whether the goods inside the box were laid away from the box, and brought it to the public performance-related persons or security guards, etc. who performed a public performance at a place less than a long time, and the Defendant was investigated as a criminal fact that the Defendant committed a bicycle theft before the instant case. In full view of the following circumstances, C, which was recognized that the Defendant had already been investigated as the goods of another person, and thus, C would have been sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was the goods of another person, and thus, C could sufficiently recognize the intent of theft.