Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

around 18:00 on June 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) exchanged goods within the “E” of the Victim D Management in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and stolen a cosmetic 22,000 won higher than the market price; (b) one micker in the 22,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the statutes governing CCTV image USB in the case;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant only brings about one 'the number of actual cosmetics' in the process of exchanging previously purchased cosmetics to another (hereinafter "the damaged product of this case"). Thus, there is no intention of theft.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant purchased one "the first hand fluor" at the above store on June 18, 2016, at 19,000 won, and the defendant found the above store on June 25, 2016 and decided to exchange the above cosmetic with the damaged product (22,00 won) and then he was an employee F (D was not at the store on the day of this case) (the manager of the above store was not at the store on the day of this case) who was an employee, after he was engaged in the exchange processing of the damaged product of this case, directly put the damaged product of this case in the paper of this case and putting his clothes on that part (in the paper of this case, putting the clothes contained in the paper room and putting the damaged product of this case, putting the damaged product of this case in the paper of this case, and then putting the damaged product of this case in the paper of this case).

F was directed to F, and F had the bar code of the damaged product of this case affixed to F, and F again paid KRW 3,000,000, which is the difference after putting the damaged product of this case directly in the paper room and putting his clothes into the paper room. Since then, the Defendant left the paper room above 10 minutes.