Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 23, 2019, the Defendant brought about KRW 50,000,00,000, KRW 26,000,00,00 won, which was entered on the ground and on the ground, after the victim D (the age of 19,00) who was landed from the vehicle to work at the crosswalk in the front of the B tax accounting corporation B in Ansan-si, due to his fall.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Ctv video photographs (the defendant denies the crime of this case, but according to the aforementioned evidence, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that he/she brought about a wall that the victim kills, and therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit).

1. Relevant Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The Defendant stolen the sum of KRW 50,000,000, total of KRW 26,000,000, which was entered in Myanmar and land A at a place as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the facts charged.

2. In the judgment of larceny, another person’s property refers to the property owned and occupied by another person. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, it is recognized that the victim gets off the vehicle while getting off the vehicle and damaged the wall containing money, and thereafter, the Defendant who dried up the crosswalk was able to report the wall that is far away. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above wall is abandoned rather than under the possession of the other group in the recognition of the general public.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant stolen wallets owned and possessed by another person, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime, or it is so long as it is judged guilty of the crime of embezzlement of stolen articles in the judgment.