1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of three million won;

Defendant

If A fails to pay the above fine, KRW 50,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A At around 17:00 on April 1, 2013, from the first floor G of the operation of the victim E in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, 20,000 won in cash at the credit cooperative established in the above business place, from that time, from that time to that time, it shall take up 20,000 won in cash.

6. Until December 24, 200, a total of 1,560,00 won in cash was stolen through the above 68 times as shown in the annexed list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each police statement of E;

1. Amertain;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on thefts;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

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

1. On June 2, 2013, Defendant B, at around 16:48, stolen the sum of KRW 17,000,00, KRW 17,000 from the F1st floor of the E’s operation in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong-gu, and KRW 17,00,00 from the credit cooperative established in the foregoing establishment.

2. In a criminal trial on the market, the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof was not sufficiently enough to have such conviction, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense has not been able to be able to be able to in

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, Defendant B, at the same time and time as the Defendant A entered in the above facts charged, worked for the said establishment and was a teaching agent, and Defendant B, as stated in the above facts charged, was aware that cash was taken out at a credit cooperative as stated in the above facts charged.

However, on the other hand, the above.