Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On November 19, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Daegu District Court for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 26, 2013.

On February 6, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution, and 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court on the grounds of fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 23, 2013, the Defendant received a request to sell tobacco equivalent to KRW 2,04,000 in total amount of KRW 2,004,00,000 from E in front of the “D Age”, which he stolen from E, on the street, at approximately 17:0 on March 23, 2013.

The Defendant knew of the fact that the above tobacco was stolen, received it, and asked H to sell the tobacco to the employees of the Defendant’s main store located in Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, and received KRW 680,000 from the above date to the Haman of the same month. From the above date to the Haman of the same month, H received KRW 680,000 from the sales price of the above tobacco to the customers under his name. The Defendant sold the remaining tobacco after selling at the above “G main store” in the same month to Haman of the same month.

Accordingly, the defendant assisted the transfer of stolen goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (e-mail one time);

1. Statement by the police about E;

1. Previous convictions: Each investigation report (the confirmation of the date of confirmation), summary agreement assistant, Daegu District Court Decision 2012No3884, Daegu District Court Decision 2012No387, Daegu District Court Decision 2012 Godan2037 (the defendant and his defense counsel did not know whether the tobacco he possessed was stolen. However, according to each evidence of the judgment, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware that at least the above tobacco was stolen at the time when the tobacco was delivered by E, and therefore, the above argument is groundless). The above argument is without merit.

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;