The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

On May 16, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution due to intimidation, etc. by the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 24, 2013.

On April 18, 2013, at around 04:33, the Defendant: (a) discovered and attempted to commit a theft by putting off the glass of a water tank installed in the D market in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Ecafeteria”); (b) by putting off the glass of a water tank installed in the D market in the said D market in an unknown tool, and (c) intending to commit a theft by putting it over; and (d) discovered the sound of the water pipe glass (hereinafter “instant glass”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's statement in court, police over the defendant and protocol of suspect examination by prosecution;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. A criminal investigation report (in the initial investigation), a criminal investigation report (specific suspect), a criminal investigation report (CCTV video recording data), on-site photographs, and standing photographs;

1. Application of a copy of a written judgment and statutes on the inspection of Konet case;

1. Relevant Article 342 of the Criminal Act and Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. Grounds for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel argued that the body was safryed on the new wall, and the sound was safryed in the E-cafeteria near the E-cafeteria, leading to coming to the E-cafeteria depending on the sound. The Defendant and his defense counsel had been safly at the wind with the glass of the instant case, and there was no safing of the instant glass.

2. Determination

A. There are circumstances to suspect the facts charged, such as the absence of clear evidence to deem that there was no specification that the tool that broken the instant glass was not specified, that there was a narrow space in front of the water satisfaction pipe at the time of the instant case, and that there was no string of the Defendant with the implements or string the glass.

B. However, the following are revealed by the evidence duly admitted and examined by this Court.