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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

At around 04:14 on April 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was notified of his escape from a slope D belonging to him to be taken into theft; (b) the Defendant used D’s right-hand arms in hand; (c) continued to use D’s d’, “the d’s d’s d’s d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ d’ e

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D's legal statement;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

2. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

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

1. Around April 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 03:31 on April 7, 2012, the Defendant: (b) abused the victim E visiting the district for the investigation of other cases on his/her own by placing the victim E on his/her own, and by taking advantage of the gaps that he/she moved to another place; (c) included the victim’s cash, gift certificates, credit cards, etc. on his/her own, in his/her own money.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant, while putting the wallets in Australia, did not bring about the Defendant’s refusal to comply with the police officer’s demand on the part of the Defendant who continued to search for the wallets once.

① However, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of violence, and ② even based on the investigation report (Investigation Record 16 pages) prepared by the police, the Defendant presented his identification card to the police officer immediately before the police officer demanding the presentation of his identification card, and then again presented his identification card to the police officer who had no identification card. If the Defendant was aware that the above E’s wall was a third person’s wall and had the intention to steal it, then the Defendant was seen from the perspective of the average person.