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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On April 13, 2017, around 19:38, the Defendant has one set of apologys equivalent to 5,000 won at the market price of the victim owned by the victim D located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the same year.

5. 18. 22:02 Sheeted with three cans equivalent to 15,00 won at the market price, which is owned by the injured party, displayed at the above sale stand, and the same year;

6. 13. 20:12 At around 20:12, the victim's market price is equivalent to 8,000 won, being placed in the above sales stand, and the same year;

7. 13. Around 19:55, at around 19:55, the victim’s market price of KRW 5,000, which is the victim’s possession, was cut off 33,000, total market price of KRW 33,00,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of a fine for choosing a punishment (the defendant has the same kind of power, but the value of stolen goods is the small amount and the defendant has been agreed smoothly with the victim);

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. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the confinement in a workhouse [the defense counsel] that the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime;

However, it is difficult to recognize this only by the defendant's statement that he dices alcohol before the crime of this case and that he cannot memory the crime of this case. Rather, in light of the defendant's power, the method of the crime of this case, the behavior before and after the crime of this case, the kind of stolen goods, and the amount of the stolen goods, the above argument is not acceptable.