Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 26, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court on April 15, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2017.

"2016 High Court 2638"

1. On October 11, 2015, the Defendant damaged a free door equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 at the market price owned by the victim C, which was operated by the victim C, located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, on the part of the Defendant.

2. On October 11, 2015, around 09:00, the Defendant entered into a certain area in front of the “G” operated by the Victim F in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and stolen the victim’s market value, which is the victim’s ownership, with one shamp and shamp in an amount equivalent to KRW 30,000,000.

On September 26, 2015, the Defendant: “2016 High 4290, the Defendant: (a) during a sobrying period, I S5 Smartphone 800,000,000 won, which was located in P of Busan, Busan, on September 26, 2015; and (b) during a sobry period, J used the gaps of KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Summary of Evidence

[2016 High Court Decision 2638]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of C and F;

1. Police investigation report (F wife's statement, submission of damaged objects photograph, and written estimate);

1. On-site reporting on the results of field meals (2016 high-level 4290);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. A letter of arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged articles;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for each crime;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes with the special larceny of first head, etc. of the judgment that became final and conclusive, and subsequent Article 37 of the Criminal Act.