Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 15:20 on June 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) stored “C’s clothes store located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul; (b) stored the victim D’s cresh in which the store manager was negligent in monitoring; and (c) cut off the Defendant’s straw-ro with a string of arms, which had been displayed at that place at the market price of KRW 5,00,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Written statements of E and D;

1. A report on internal investigation (STV image data verification), and a investigation report (a statement by the counter party to the statement of witness E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV image data CDs;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse

1. The Defendant’s assertion that he did not steals the civil retail line.

2. In full view of the following facts admitted as a result of the examination of the evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has stolen the civil retail air conditioners as indicated in the judgment:

The defendant's assertion is rejected.

(1) The defendant has used a stove with a large stove, and entered a store with a s toves attached to both arms, wearing a stove with a white stove.

Because of the above hats, the face of the defendant does not appear well in the CCTV installed in the burial of this case, and later, the face of the defendant must be exceeded the above hat while the defendant added the victim and re-entered into the burial, was found in the CCTV.

② The Defendant went to the clothes of a non-retailer, which were judged in the judgment of the Defendant, such as drinking clothes in the store, etc.

The Defendant examined clothes in the vicinity of the clothes in which the non-retailers had been held by the Defendant. Since the Defendant was located in the blind spot of CCTV, CCTV only seems to have been sprinked by the Defendant, and there was no other physical parts.

As above, immediately after examining clothes, the Defendant was released from the clothes of this case’s non-retailing line, and there is no other person who had the above clothes.

2.3