Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On July 23, 2017, around 10:23, the Defendant cut off one half of the semi-influencies of the non-influencies of the city value equivalent to KRW 200,000,00,000, which includes approximately KRW 40,000,000 in cash owned by the victim E in the PC room of the PC room of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C-1st, located above the toilet site through the cremation site.

Summary of Evidence

1. A victim statement of E;

1. An investigation report (inspection and analysis of the scene and surrounding CCTVs), a photograph of CCTV to capture at the scene of the occurrence (Comparison of the suspect before and after the occurrence), a criminal investigation report (Attachment of on-site CCTV image data), a CD of CCTV at the scene of the occurrence, a CD of CCTV at the scene of the occurrence, and a criminal investigation report (a suspect's behavior analysis from the PC toilet

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs at occurrence site;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant does not have to bring about a wall on his/her own.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant may be sufficiently recognized as having stolen the victim’s wallet.

① After the victim was placed in a toilet, the Defendant immediately used the toilet next to that.

② The toilet of this case is narrow enough to use only one person. The victim left the toilet door on the left side of the toilet, and the victim was placed with a red sponsing box above. In light of the location where the victim left the wall and the color of the wall, etc., the Defendant could have sufficiently seen that he entered the toilet at the time he entered the toilet.

③ In particular, the Defendant entered the CCTV at the time, but did not see any hand when entering the toilet, and did not leave the toilet.