Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as a part-time user from the D convenience store located in the victim C to 00 to 09.

1) On January 19, 2016, the Defendant embezzled one (4,500 won) of the victim C’s market price owned by the Defendant, which was displayed at the D convenience store located in Guri-si E, Guri-si, as a part-time, and embezzled one (4,500 won of the victim C’s market price). (2) On March 13, 2016, the Defendant embezzled the Defendant from D convenience store located in Guri-si, Guri-si, E as part-time, and embezzled KRW 4,500 of the victim C’s market price at KRW 4,500 of the victim’s market price. The summary of the evidence was embezzled.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and F;

1. One CD (hereinafter referred to as such video and CCTV photographic data), CCTV-cape photograph;

1. An investigation report (verification of detailed details of sales) - Sales Details (the details of the use of the victim’s card on January 19, 2016), sales details (as between 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 p. Mar. 13, 2016) - [Defendant Co., Ltd. permitted a victim to drink his/her city while on January 19, 2016, regardless of the expiration of the distribution deadline, regardless of whether or not the expiration of the distribution deadline, and in relation to the portion of embezzlement of tobacco as of March 13, 2016, the Defendant paid the price of tobacco at the time in cash.

The argument is asserted.

However, the circumstances duly admitted and examined by this Court, i.e., (1) in this Court, the witness F stated in this Court that the victim would drink in the case of an urban village where the distribution maturity will be destroyed, but the other distribution maturity would not be the victim, and that the victim would not drink in the case of an urban village where the distribution maturity will be destroyed. In addition, the witness F comprehensively permitted the defendant to drink in lieu of the victim’s failure to pay food.

There is no evidence to see that there is no other evidence, ② the Defendant’s drinking city is considered to have not yet expired at the time of distribution, ③ According to CCTV images, the Defendant pays the price at the time of bringing urban village and tobacco.