Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 21, 2012, around 21:10 on November 21, 2012, the Defendant found one point on the part of the Victim E located in the restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and stolen the cash of KRW 400,000 ( Chapter 7, 10,000 won, Chapter 5,00 won), which was located on the wall, after acquiring one point on the part of the Victim E located in a restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness F;
1. Each statement of witness E in the third protocol of trial and the fourth protocol of trial;
1. The entry of part of the witness H in the third protocol of trial;
1. Each statement of E, H, G, and F;
1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;
1. A report on occurrence (ththief) (the Defendant and his defense counsel confirmed that the Defendant’s wallets was located in the restaurant on the day of the instant case to the extent of cash in the same amount as that indicated in the facts charged, and then, denied the charges by asserting that the first Defendant, without taking off cash from the wallet or having any fact out of the fact that the Defendant discovered the wallet from the wallet, gave H a view that there were some unclear or contradictory parts of the H’s police and court statements among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, but its overall purpose is that there was no cash within the wall when H received the wallet from the Defendant and confirmed its contents. At the time, F, who was on the spot observed by the Defendant at the time, did not return the wall from the police and this court to confirm its contents, opened the wallet to verify its contents, and did not comply with H’s motive or content, taking into account the aforementioned facts and circumstances before and after the Defendant’s submission of the evidence to the prosecutor, and thus, there was no reason to view that H’s statement or its application was consistent with the aforementioned evidence.
1. Criminal facts;